Home/Ninth Circuit/Henry v. City of Los Angeles

Henry v. City of Los Angeles

255 F. 769, 167 C.C.A. 113, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1523
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 10, 1919
DocketNo. 3108
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 255 F. 769 (Henry v. City of Los Angeles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Henry v. City of Los Angeles, 255 F. 769, 167 C.C.A. 113, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1523 (9th Cir. 1919).

Opinion

HUNT, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a decree dismissing the complaint of appellant, Henry, upon the ground that the Lyndon patent, No. 695,220, issued March 11, 1902, here involved, was not infringed.

The patent describes the invention generally as improvements in electro-mechanical water wheel governors. In his specifications the inventor sets forth that governors used to regulate the water supply to the water wheel in general operate only to open or close the -water wheel gate, thereby allowing of the admission of a greater or less supply of water. He continues

“Now, the first effect of such opening or closing of the gate, owing to the inertia of the water, is always the opposite to that which it is desired to bring about — i. e., the opening of the gate operating to momentarily cause less velocity of water at the wheel, owing to the great orifice the water has to flow through, and, vice versa, the closing of the gate operating to momentarily cause an increase of velocity, owing to the contraction of the orifice.”

To overcome these opposite effects, the patentee provides a by-pass inserted into the penstock or flume at a point near the water gate and a gate in the by-pass controlled by the same governing mechanism that controls the water gate and operating to allow a greater or less flow through the by-pass, according as the water gate is being closed or opened. Other principal features enumerated in the specifications “relate to means for preventing excessive action of the governor,” and to the control of the governor by a dynamo driven by the water wheel.

[ 1 ] The use of electric governors for water wheels was old in the art, as were the uses of mechanical governors; but the appellant contends that prior to the coming of Lyndon into the field there prevailed in the électro-medhanical water wheel art an absolute want of sensitive and accurate speed governing — that is, the governing of the generating apparatus driven hy water power — and that often there were fluctuations of wide extremes occurring in the supply of electrical energy produced by any electro-mechanical generating unit. Obviously it is desirable to retain a constant speed in the use of power required from a water wheel, and inventors have' sought to maintain a balance or equilibrium between the power of the water projected upon the buckets or blades of the water wheel and mechanical power being taken from the water wheel.

Appellant says that Lyndon pointed the way to securing in a water wheel governor the automatic return of the controller to normal position to interrupt the governing action before it had overrun, or the introduction of means such that the governor, when in the act of moving the water gate to a new position, would be prevented from moving the gate “a little too far and then later moving it back a little farther than necessary.”

The claims which appellant quotes as bearing upon the breadth and import of the invention are as follows:

3. In a water wheel governor, the combination with a water gate operating, shaft, and means for operating same in either direction to govern the water wheel, of a controller for said operating means, responsive to changes of speed of the water wheel, a returning device for said controller provided with a clutch connection to said operating shaft, and means, actuated by [771]*771said controller on movement thereof from normal position to engage said clutch with the said shaft, so as to cause the return of the controller to normal position and interrupt the governing action before it has overrun the proper amount, substantially as for the purpose set forth.
4. In a water wheel governor, the combination with a water gate operating shaft, a driving shaft and reversing clutch gear, adapted to turn the water gate operating shaft in either direction, a controller, responsive to changes of speed of the water wheel and controlling such reversing gear, and a returning device for said controller provided with actuating means controlled by said controlling moans to return the controller to inoperative position, so as to prevent excessive movement of the governor.
6. In a water wheel governor, the combination with means for operating the wafer gate in either direction, a by-pass for the water wheel, and a valve controlling said by-pass, of means connected to the water gate operating means and operating the by-pass valve inversely to the operation of the water gate.
7. In a water wheel governor, the combination with means for operating the water gato in either direction from, normal position, a by-pass for the water wheel, and a valve for such by-pass, of means connected to the water gate operating means and adapted to operate the by-pass valve from, normal position in either direction, so as to control such valve inversely to the control of the water gate, during the governing action of the water gate, and means for returning the by-pass valve to normal position on completion of governing movement of the water gate operating means.
8. In a water wheel governor,, the combination with a shaft for operating the water gate in either direction from normal position, a by-pass for the water wheel and a valve for such by-pass normally held in partly open position, of an operating device for said valve provided with means for returning the valve to normal position, a clutch, adapted to connect said operating device for the by-pass valve with the water gate operating shaft to control the by-pass valve inversely to the water gate, reversing means for operating the water gate operating shaft in either direction, a controller, responsive to the speed of the water wheel and controlling said reversing means, and means operated by said controller to bring the aforesaid clutch into operation and to release said clutch when the governing action is effected.

It is contended that the by-pass combination is broadly and basicly claimed in claims 6, 7, and 8 of the patent, and the combination preventing overrunning is broadly claimed in claims 3 and 4, and that the structures used by the appellee contain and utilize the substance of the invention within the meaning of the leading and controlling decisions under the patent law. Stating the contentions more concretely, they are, that the relation between the by-pass valve and the water gate was new with Tyndon, as also were the relations between the features preventing overrunning of the governor.

The whole problem of speed control and use of electro motive force in water wheel engines appears to he complex. To explain in detail the many features involved in the case would require very lengthy statements of the evidence. We shall therefore attempt no more than to refer to the more important points upon which our judgment is founded.

Tyndon’s device contains the following essential elements: A speed-sensitive device, comprising a dynamo and connected parts, is connected by mechanical means to the prime mover, and therefore varies in speed responsive to variations in the prime mover. Variations in speed of -the speed-sensitive device produce a change in degree of magnetization of a solenoid, which results in the movement of the solenoid core, which movement produces certain electrical contacts, the closure of which serves to energize certain magnets, the energizing of which serves [772]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bontrager v. Steury Corp.
457 F. Supp. 526 (N.D. Indiana, 1978)
Bergman v. Aluminum Lock Shingle Corporation Of America
251 F.2d 801 (Ninth Circuit, 1958)
Bergman v. Aluminum Lock Shingle Corp. of America
251 F.2d 801 (Ninth Circuit, 1957)
Sid W. Richardson, Inc. v. Bryan
144 F. Supp. 916 (S.D. Texas, 1956)
Carl Braun, Inc. v. Kendall-Lamar Corp.
116 F.2d 663 (Second Circuit, 1941)
E. J. Brooks Co. v. Klein
114 F.2d 955 (Third Circuit, 1940)
McRoskey v. Braun Mattress Co.
107 F.2d 143 (Ninth Circuit, 1939)
Wire Tie Machinery Co. v. Pacific Box Corp.
107 F.2d 54 (Ninth Circuit, 1939)
Delaney Patents Corp. v. Johns-Manville
29 F. Supp. 431 (S.D. California, 1939)
Dillon Co. v. Continental Supply Co.
98 F.2d 581 (Tenth Circuit, 1938)
Shull Perforating Co. v. Cavins
94 F.2d 357 (Ninth Circuit, 1938)
Reinharts, Inc. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.
85 F.2d 628 (Ninth Circuit, 1936)
T. H. Symington & Son, Inc. v. Symington Co.
9 F. Supp. 699 (D. Maryland, 1935)
Greene Process Metal Co. v. Washington Iron Works
6 F. Supp. 399 (W.D. Washington, 1933)
Rubenstein v. Slobotkin
33 F.2d 603 (E.D. New York, 1929)
Montgomery v. United States
65 Ct. Cl. 526 (Court of Claims, 1928)
Spengler Core Drilling Co. v. Spencer
10 F.2d 579 (S.D. California, 1926)
Carson v. American Smelting & Refining Co.
293 F. 771 (W.D. Washington, 1923)
National Cash Register Co. v. Remington Arms Co.
293 F. 123 (D. Delaware, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
255 F. 769, 167 C.C.A. 113, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-v-city-of-los-angeles-ca9-1919.