Lyman v. Lyman

75 F. 665, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 3517

This text of 75 F. 665 (Lyman v. Lyman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lyman v. Lyman, 75 F. 665, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 3517 (circtndil 1895).

Opinion

SHOW ALTER, Circuit Judge.

This litigation has to do with the funnel-shaped sheet-metal structures sometimes seen on city buildings and known as “condenser heads,” or “steam-exhaust heads.” A condenser head is attached to a steam-exhaust pipe to condense the steam, and prevent the spray and objectionable matter therein from, spreading over the roof of the building on which it is used. Steam passing through such a contrivance is hindered and delayed in its exit by metal deflector plates, so arranged as to condense the steam and carry the water of condensation to a drip pipe at one side, whence it is conducted to the sewer, or to some other appropriate receplacle. The alleged cause of action is that a steam-exhaust head made by defendant and bis partner, now deceased, patented June 18, 1889, in letters patent No. 405,575, infringes certain patents — No. 179,581 (reissue No. 10,497), and No. 303,441 — owned by complainant. In Lyman v. Maypole, 19 Fed. 737, Judge Blodgett, having before him evidence as to the prior art, which has been put into this record hv stipulation, said, after quoting1 the two claims of No. 179,581, the second of which, on the con[666]*666tention of complainant, is infringed by this defendant: “Both these claims, as I construe them, call for these deflecting plates with turned edges.” The reference is to the deflectors, O, 0, which form part of the combination in said second claim. The deflectors in defendant’s combination, which, on the ■ theory of infringement, must be treated as the equivalents of said deflectors, 0, 0, are not. made with turned edges. A vertical section through the center of said last-named deflectors shows straight lines to the edges. On the case cited, there is no infringement, therefore, of No. 179,581.

Reissued patent, No. 10,497, is the exhaust head patented as No. 179,581, with “an addition thereto,” quoting from the specification, “of certain auxiliary and subdeflectors,” etc. One of the additions is a short cylinder, “or subdeflector, g,” having the lower edge “flared outwards,” and the upper edge attached to the under side of the upper deflector, D. Said subdeflector, g, is a downward extension of said deflector, D, is concentric with said D, and slightly less in diameter than the extreme lower rim of said deflector, D. The fourth claim, said to be infringed, is in words following:

•‘(4) The combination of the shell, B, and the upper deflector provided with the subdeflector, g, the lower edges of which are slightly flared outward, with the lower deflector, substantially in the manner set forth.”

The upper and lower deflectors are here identical with the deflectors of patent No. 179,581. The ring or cylinder in. defendant’s device, which is said to answer the subdeflector, g, in the claim quoted, is not flared outwards at the lower edge, nor is it connected with, or integral with, the deflector above it, there being a clear space or passageway for steam between said cylinder and said upper deflector. On the citation above made, and by reason of the additional point of difference here noted, no infringement of the [667]*667combination stated in the claim quoted from the reissued patent is made out.

In the specification in No. 303,441 the invention is said to consist "of a combined hand-hole and drip-pipe” for a steam-condenser head, such as is described, for instance, in the patents already mentioned. The patentee says further:

“In my invention, at that point whore the drip pipe would open into the head, were my invention not known, I place the hand-hole, B, the bottom of the shell coruiiosing which is sufficiently inclined in the same direction as the

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

Related

Lyman v. Maypole
19 F. 735 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
75 F. 665, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 3517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lyman-v-lyman-circtndil-1895.