Pratt & Whitney Co. v. United States
Opinion
Per Curiam :
This patent case comes before the court on the merits on defendant’s motion pursuant to Buies 62 and 66 that the court adopt the opinion, findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law filed by Trial Commissioner Donald E. Lane on April 23,1964. On March 2, 1965, plaintiffs filed a notice, signed by the attorneys for defendant, agreeing to file no exceptions or brief and present no oral argument with respect to any of these cases covered by Trial Commissioner Lane’s report of April 23,1964, with each party to bear its own costs. Upon consideration thereof, and without oral argument, since the court is in agreement with the opinion, findings of fact and recommended conclusion of law of the trial commissioner, as hereinafter set forth, it hereby adopts the same as the basis for its judgment in this case. It is, therefore, concluded that claims 1-22, 33 and 34 of U.S. Letters Patent 2,673,556 and claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 21, 24, 25, 36, 38, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67 and 71 of U.S. Letters Patent 2,435,902, all of the claims here in suit, are invalid and not infringed and the petitions as to these claims are dismissed.
OPINION OP COMMISSIONEE
This case involves eight patent suits filed in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1498 (1958, Supp. IV). It is found that there is no infringement of any of the claims of the two patents in suit, and that neither of the patents is valid.
[832] Plaintiffs here seek to recover reasonable and entire compensation for unauthorized use of the subject matter defined by several claims of U.S. Letters Patents Nos. 2,435,902, hereinafter referred to as the '902 patent, and 2,673,556, hereinafter referred to as the '556 patent. The '902 patent issued to Ferdinando C. Reggio, one of the plaintiffs here, on an alleged divisional application filed June 28, 1947. The parent application was filed February 3, 1939. The '556 patent was issued to Reggio on an alleged divisional application filed October 13, 1952, the parent application having been filed November 4, 1943. The parties plaintiff in addition to Reggio are Pratt and Whitney Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation with a place of business in West Hartford, Connecticut, and Chandler-Evans Corp., a Delaware Corporation also with a place of business in West Hartford, Connecticut. Chandler-Evans Corp. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pratt and Whitney Co. Both Pratt and Whitney and Chandler-Evans are successors in interest of limited patent rights in the two patents in suit which rights were transferred in a license agreement by Reggio to the Niles-Bement-Pond Corporation. Reggio, a resident of Norwalk, Conn., is the holder of the legal title to both patents. The relationship of each of the parties to each other and to each of the eight suits is set forth in detail in findings 1 and 2. The right of certain plaintiffs to remain in some of these suits was discussed by this court in Pratt and Whitney Company, Inc., et al. v. United States, 139 Ct. Cl. 540, 153 F. Supp. 409 (1957).
Plaintiffs have charged that Bendix model TJ-A3 fuel control has infringed 24 claims of the '556 patent and have charged that the unlicensed Niles-Bement-Pond and Pierce VS-2 fuel controls, the Bendix AJ-A2 fuel control, the Hamilton Standard JFC-25 fuel control, and the General Electric MFC-2 and IEC controls have infringed various of 31 claims of the '902 patent. The parties agreed to a separation of issues for trial. The questions of infringement and validity of selected patent claims are now before the court.
Both of the patents in suit relate to fuel metering systems designed particularly for use with aircraft engines. The [833] patented fuel controls automatically control the fuel-air ratio of the engine combustible mixture as engine operating conditions change. The patent disclosures and patent claims in suit are described in detail in the accompanying findings of fact. The several issues of law involved are discussed in the following comments.
As a principal defense to liability under either the '902 or '556 patents in suit, defendant has urged that none of the accused controls, the TJ-A3, AJ-A2, VS-2, JFC-25, MFC-2, and IEC contain the combinations of elements defined in the claims of the patents in suit and that as a result there can be no infringement. Plaintiffs have alleged that the accused controls are equivalent to the constructions defined by selected claims of the patents in suit and that there is consequent infringement.
A patentee, particularly of a combination invention, is entitled to a range of equivalents for his invention as recited in the claims. The purpose of this allowance was described by Judge Learned Hand as “* * * to temper unsparing logic and prevent an infringer from stealing the benefit of the invention.” Royal Typewriter Co. v. Remington Rand, Inc., 168 F. 2d 691, 692, 77 U.S.P.Q. 517-8 (2d Cir. 1948). In order to avail himself of the benefits of this doctrine, the owner of the patent rights must show that the accused structure performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain substantially the same result as does the invention defined in the claims. Sanitary Refrigerator Company v. Winters, 280 U.S. 30, 42 (1929).
Since there are obvious differences in the structure and function of the accused gas turbine controls and the fuel controls defined in the claims of the patents in suit, it is necessary to determine whether plaintiffs have shown sufficient identity of structure, function, and result between the accused controls and the controls defined in the patent claims in suit to make out a case of infringement.
Both the '902 and '556 patents disclose fuel controls used in the operation of internal combustion engines, principally aircraft engines. The evidence shows that these controls were designed for and can be used only in internal combustion engines of the piston type. Thus the claims of these two [834] patents must be construed to define only combinations of elements used on piston type engines. All of the fuel controls accused to infringe the claims of the two patents in suit are designed for and work effectively only on gas turbine engines, which differ substantially in structure and operation from piston type engines. Likewise the fuel controls of gas turbine engines are basically and structurally different and operate in different manners than do the fuel controls described in either the '556 or '902 patents in suit. Under these circumstances there can be no infringement of any of the claims in suit of either the '556 patent or the '902 patent by any of the several accused gas turbine controls. It would constitute an unwarranted expansion of the doctrine of equivalents to hold that these dissimilar gas turbine fuel controls are encompassed by any of the claims relied upon by plaintiffs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Per Curiam :
This patent case comes before the court on the merits on defendant’s motion pursuant to Buies 62 and 66 that the court adopt the opinion, findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law filed by Trial Commissioner Donald E. Lane on April 23,1964. On March 2, 1965, plaintiffs filed a notice, signed by the attorneys for defendant, agreeing to file no exceptions or brief and present no oral argument with respect to any of these cases covered by Trial Commissioner Lane’s report of April 23,1964, with each party to bear its own costs. Upon consideration thereof, and without oral argument, since the court is in agreement with the opinion, findings of fact and recommended conclusion of law of the trial commissioner, as hereinafter set forth, it hereby adopts the same as the basis for its judgment in this case. It is, therefore, concluded that claims 1-22, 33 and 34 of U.S. Letters Patent 2,673,556 and claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 21, 24, 25, 36, 38, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67 and 71 of U.S. Letters Patent 2,435,902, all of the claims here in suit, are invalid and not infringed and the petitions as to these claims are dismissed.
OPINION OP COMMISSIONEE
This case involves eight patent suits filed in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1498 (1958, Supp. IV). It is found that there is no infringement of any of the claims of the two patents in suit, and that neither of the patents is valid.
[832] Plaintiffs here seek to recover reasonable and entire compensation for unauthorized use of the subject matter defined by several claims of U.S. Letters Patents Nos. 2,435,902, hereinafter referred to as the '902 patent, and 2,673,556, hereinafter referred to as the '556 patent. The '902 patent issued to Ferdinando C. Reggio, one of the plaintiffs here, on an alleged divisional application filed June 28, 1947. The parent application was filed February 3, 1939. The '556 patent was issued to Reggio on an alleged divisional application filed October 13, 1952, the parent application having been filed November 4, 1943. The parties plaintiff in addition to Reggio are Pratt and Whitney Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation with a place of business in West Hartford, Connecticut, and Chandler-Evans Corp., a Delaware Corporation also with a place of business in West Hartford, Connecticut. Chandler-Evans Corp. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pratt and Whitney Co. Both Pratt and Whitney and Chandler-Evans are successors in interest of limited patent rights in the two patents in suit which rights were transferred in a license agreement by Reggio to the Niles-Bement-Pond Corporation. Reggio, a resident of Norwalk, Conn., is the holder of the legal title to both patents. The relationship of each of the parties to each other and to each of the eight suits is set forth in detail in findings 1 and 2. The right of certain plaintiffs to remain in some of these suits was discussed by this court in Pratt and Whitney Company, Inc., et al. v. United States, 139 Ct. Cl. 540, 153 F. Supp. 409 (1957).
Plaintiffs have charged that Bendix model TJ-A3 fuel control has infringed 24 claims of the '556 patent and have charged that the unlicensed Niles-Bement-Pond and Pierce VS-2 fuel controls, the Bendix AJ-A2 fuel control, the Hamilton Standard JFC-25 fuel control, and the General Electric MFC-2 and IEC controls have infringed various of 31 claims of the '902 patent. The parties agreed to a separation of issues for trial. The questions of infringement and validity of selected patent claims are now before the court.
Both of the patents in suit relate to fuel metering systems designed particularly for use with aircraft engines. The [833] patented fuel controls automatically control the fuel-air ratio of the engine combustible mixture as engine operating conditions change. The patent disclosures and patent claims in suit are described in detail in the accompanying findings of fact. The several issues of law involved are discussed in the following comments.
As a principal defense to liability under either the '902 or '556 patents in suit, defendant has urged that none of the accused controls, the TJ-A3, AJ-A2, VS-2, JFC-25, MFC-2, and IEC contain the combinations of elements defined in the claims of the patents in suit and that as a result there can be no infringement. Plaintiffs have alleged that the accused controls are equivalent to the constructions defined by selected claims of the patents in suit and that there is consequent infringement.
A patentee, particularly of a combination invention, is entitled to a range of equivalents for his invention as recited in the claims. The purpose of this allowance was described by Judge Learned Hand as “* * * to temper unsparing logic and prevent an infringer from stealing the benefit of the invention.” Royal Typewriter Co. v. Remington Rand, Inc., 168 F. 2d 691, 692, 77 U.S.P.Q. 517-8 (2d Cir. 1948). In order to avail himself of the benefits of this doctrine, the owner of the patent rights must show that the accused structure performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain substantially the same result as does the invention defined in the claims. Sanitary Refrigerator Company v. Winters, 280 U.S. 30, 42 (1929).
Since there are obvious differences in the structure and function of the accused gas turbine controls and the fuel controls defined in the claims of the patents in suit, it is necessary to determine whether plaintiffs have shown sufficient identity of structure, function, and result between the accused controls and the controls defined in the patent claims in suit to make out a case of infringement.
Both the '902 and '556 patents disclose fuel controls used in the operation of internal combustion engines, principally aircraft engines. The evidence shows that these controls were designed for and can be used only in internal combustion engines of the piston type. Thus the claims of these two [834] patents must be construed to define only combinations of elements used on piston type engines. All of the fuel controls accused to infringe the claims of the two patents in suit are designed for and work effectively only on gas turbine engines, which differ substantially in structure and operation from piston type engines. Likewise the fuel controls of gas turbine engines are basically and structurally different and operate in different manners than do the fuel controls described in either the '556 or '902 patents in suit. Under these circumstances there can be no infringement of any of the claims in suit of either the '556 patent or the '902 patent by any of the several accused gas turbine controls. It would constitute an unwarranted expansion of the doctrine of equivalents to hold that these dissimilar gas turbine fuel controls are encompassed by any of the claims relied upon by plaintiffs.
The result here reached regarding the question of infringement finds support for an additional reason. The two Neggio patents '556 and '902 were issued in a very crowded field in which numerous patents relating to subject matter similar to that contained in the two patents in suit have issued. In view of the crowded condition of the art, the claims in suit must be narrowly construed in order to be distinguished at all over the prior art, and it is well settled that the range of equivalents which can be accorded to an invention is dependent on the degree of the invention. See Gamble-Skogmo, Inc. v. Paul E. Hawkinson Co., 98 F. 2d 37, 41-2 (8th Cir. 1938). While the claims in suit must be given a very limited construction, it would be only with the broadest interpretation that they could possibly be found to read upon the accused gas turbine fuel controls, all of which contain elements and combinations of elements which as previously noted differ widely from those described in either the '556 or '902 patents. Thus even if it were possible to read the words of the claims of the '556 or '902 patents upon the accused controls there would be no infringement because of the substantial differences between the patented controls and the accused gas turbine fuel controls. See also Graver Tank and Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605, 608-9 (1949).
[835] Defendant has as an additional defense contended that the '556 and '902 patents contain claims which are directed to subject matter previously claimed in the patentee Eeggio’s earlier issued patent 2,378,036, hereinafter referred to as the '036 patent, and that the two patents in suit are thus invalid because of double patenting. The preliminary question in establishing double patenting is ascertaining whether the language of the respective patent claims has substantially the same import. The courts have held that to have double patenting it was necessary that the claims of the patents cross-read, that is that not only must the practice of the first patent be an infringement of the second but the practice of the second must be an infringement of the first. See Preformed Line Products Company v. The Fanner Manufacturing Company, 140 U.S.P.Q. 500 (6th Cir. 1964). As is noted in the accompanying findings of fact, a number of the Eeggio '556 patent claims closely correspond with claims contained in the earlier issued '036 patent. For example claim 2 of the '556 patent and claim 14 of the '036 patent do not vary in any material respect, although the wording varies slightly. Each of these two claims in effect defines the same elements and combinations of elements. As a result, the '556 patent constitutes an unlawful attempt to extend the monopoly defined by the '036 patent claims and is void. This accords with the decision of this court in Davis Airfoils, Inc. v. United States, 129 Ct. Cl. 514, 517, 124 F. Supp. 350 (1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 950 (1954), in which it was stated that:
Where an inventor subsequently receives a second patent in which the monopoly expressed in the claim or claims is the same as that covered by the first patent, even though the phraseology of the claims differs therefrom, the 17-year period of monopoly is extended, and the second patent is therefore void because of double patenting, the inventor’s rights having been exhausted by the first patent.
Plaintiffs have contended that the defense of double patenting is inapplicable as a defense to the '556 patent because of an alleged strong presumption that is raised in view of the fact the Patent Office issued both the '036 and '556 patents, that the two patents were granted for distinct pat[836] entable subject matter. Plaintiffs have also contended that defendant failed to prove double patenting by not comparing tlie monopolies defined by the claims of the two patents. As for the latter contention, the facts are to the contrary. Defendants during the trial showed that the claims can be cross-read to the extent that a finding of double patenting is warranted. The alleged presumption that patents were granted for distinguishable subject matter is overcome by the fact there is no indication the '036 patent was before the examiner until after the '556 claims had been allowed, after which time the patentee Peggio called the '036 patent to the attention of the examiner.
In view of the finding that the '556 claims are invalid due to double patenting, it is not necessary to consider defendant’s charge that the subject matter of the '556 patent had been dedicated to the public.
With regard to the '902 patent, there are indications that the monopolies defined by some of the claims of this patent and some of the claims of the '036 patent are coextensive, particularly is this true of claim 7 of the '902 patent which is not in issue and claim 7 of the '036 patent. The evidence of double patenting involving other claims of the '036 and '556 patents is not sufficient to warrant holding the '902 patent void for double patenting, and we conclude that the question should not be resolved by referring to a claim not in issue. See Pyle Nat. Co. et al. v. Lewin, 92 F. 2d 628 (7th Cir. 1937), where it was held that even though claims of the patent not there in issue represented an extension of the monopoly defined by previously issued claims, that the patent was not invalid for double patenting.
Defendant has raised the defense of late claiming. The facts show that the accused TJ-A3 fuel control was in public use and on sale in the United States as early as 1946. The '556 patent application which is an alleged divisional of patent application Ser. No. 508,897 filed November 4, 1943, and which allegedly contains claims which define a combination or combinations of elements used in the accused TJ-A3 control, was not filed in the U.S. Patent Office until October 13, 1952, some six years after the TJ-A3 control was in public use and on sale. Plaintiffs contend that not[837] withstanding this long delay in the filing of the '556 application and the claims contained therein, they are not barred as a result of late claiming from claiming subject matter relating to the TJ-A3 control because Eeggio had been claiming in the parent application Ser. No. 508,897 the subject matter of the '556 patent long before the advent of the TJ-A3. This argument is not supported by the facts. Eeggio presented no claim to the Patent Office during the prosecution of the parent application Ser. No. 508,897 which could possibly cover the TJ-A3 until claim 72 was presented in September 1951, at least 5 years after the TJ-A3 had been in public use and on sale. During this delay in the claiming of the subject matter of the present '556 patent claims, defendant obtained intervening rights due to the public use and sale of the accused TJ-A3 control which preclude liability to plaintiffs under any patent claim asserted under the '556 patent. Eeggio’s untimely presentment of the subject matter of the '556 patent claims either invalidates these claims in accordance with the late claiming doctrine announced in Muncie Gear Works, Inc. et. al. v. Outboard Marine Manufacturing Co., et al., 315 U.S. 759 (1942), or they must be narrowly construed to avoid infringement by the TJ-A3 control to accord with the holding of the Supreme Court in Railway Company v. Sayles, 97 U.S. 554, 563 (1878), in which it was stated:
* * * Courts should regard with jealousy and disfavor any attempts to enlarge the scope of an application once filed, or of a patent once granted, the effect of which would be to enable the patentee to appropriate other inventions made prior to such alteration, or to appropriate that which has, in the meantime, gone into public use.
It was stated more recently in Tropic-Aire v. Sears Roebuck and Co., 44 F. 2d 580, 593 (8th Cir. 1930) :
* * * The public, therefore, was using the Modine heater in automobiles before claim 7 of Caesar was filed. The public would appear, therefore, to have some intervening rights which should not be appropriated by a patentee.
It is further rioted that there was an expiration of about 8 years between the filing date of the parent application Ser. [838] No. 508,897 and the filing date of the alleged divisional '556 application containing claims relating to subject matter not in the original claims or in any presented to the Patent Office until, as noted above, claim 72 was presented in September 1951. In the case of Webster Electric Co. v. Splitdorf Electrical Co., 264 U.S. 463, 466 (1924), the Supreme Court was faced with a similar situation wherein the patent owner was relying upon claims submitted in a divisional application over 8 years after the filing of the original application. The Supreme Court stated:
* * * the long delay of Kane and his assignee in coming to the point tends strongly to confirm the view that the final determination to do so was an exigent afterthought, rather than a logical development of the original application. We have no hesitation in saying that the delay was unreasonable, and, under the circumstances shown by the record, constitutes laches, by which the petitioner lost whatever rights it might otherwise have been entitled to.
There is no satisfactory explanation of record for Reggio’s long delay in presenting claims to the Patent Office directed to the subject matter here asserted to be protected by the '556 patent, and this unwarranted delay supports following the decision in the Webster case and finding the claims invalid due to laches.
In challenging the validity of the two patents relied upon here by plaintiffs, defendant has produced numerous prior publications and patents which it contends demonstrate that the subject matter of these patents was unpatentable at the time Reggio sought patent protection in the Patent Office. The more important prior art references relied on by defendant are discussed in detail in the accompanying findings.
The patent statutes provide:
35 U.S.C. § 102. Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in [839] public use or ou sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or
He ❖ H« ❖ ❖
(e) the invention was described in a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
He He ❖ ❖
35 U.S.C. § 103. Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Of the 11 prior art references (finding 24) relied upon to show invalidity of the '556 patent claims, the Aero Digest article dated April 1940, the Wunsch patent 2,341,257, 1944, the Chandler patent 2,224,472, 1940, and the Mock patents 2,414,322, 1947, and 2,447,261, 1948, are considered most pertinent.
The Aero Digest article, a prior publication discussed in finding 33, describes the Bendix-Stromberg injection carburetor which is a structural and functional equivalent of the fuel control described and claimed in the '556 patent. This prior publication fully anticipates all of the claims of the '556 patent in suit and renders them invalid in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 102 of the statute quoted above. Furthermore the Bendix-Stromberg carburetor was in public use and on sale prior to February 1939, over 4 years prior to the filing of the parent application Ser. No. 508,897 of the '556 application, the earliest date upon which plaintiffs rely. Consequently the '556 patent is invalid since the patentee Reggio failed to meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of section 102 of the patent statute. The Mock patent 2,447,261 discloses a fuel control [840] possessing all of the elements of the Bendix-Stroniberg carburetor which are also common to the '556 control and is thus equally applicable as an invalidating prior art reference.
The Wunsch patent which is discussed in findings 37, 90, and 91 discloses a fuel control possessing structural parts and elements which closely correspond to the provisions of the '556 claims in suit. As is noted in findings 37 and 91, plaintiffs’ witnesses, Mr. Chandler and Mr. Prentiss, the latter plaintiff Chandler-Evans Corp.’s patent counsel, in correspondence written prior to the present suits, expressed the opinion that a number of the '556 and '902 patent claims in suit were anticipated by the Wunsch patent and that the Wunsch patent had a narrowing effect upon all of the '556 and '902 patent claims. These opinions, previously made by Chandler and Prentiss but later modified at the trial, are not binding upon plaintiffs here, and do not estop them from asserting the validity of the claims of the two patents in suit. It is noteworthy, however, that officials of certain plaintiffs at least at one time did not regard a number of the claims, upon which they now rely, as being valid, and thought that all of the claims of both patents had to be narrowly construed. In view of the close similarity of the subject matter of the Wunsch patent and the '556 patent claims, it is found that the '556 patent claims in suit did not define a patentable advancement in the art.
The Chandler patent discussed in findings 36 and 92 discloses a pressure fed carburetor which fully meets a number of the '556 patent claims in suit, and, with the addition of a flyball governor thereto in a manner which would have been obvious to one skilled in the art in accordance with the provisions of section 103 of the patent statute quoted above, all of the '556 patent claims in suit were anticipated by the Chandler patent so modified.
The Mock patent 2,414,322, which was cited by the patent examiner during, the prosecution of the '556 patent application, also discloses a fuel control which is substantially identical structurally and operationally to the '556 control. Beggio avoided this prior patent in the Patent Office by contending that his control possessed a governor which operated the fuel-air ratio control valve of the '556 control [841] as a function of engine speed. It is noted that tbe Mock control includes a fuel-air ratio control valve moved as a function of engine speed in a manner similar to that of the '556 control and there was thus no basis for distinguishing the '556 control on the grounds that it, unlike the prior art, contained a governor.
Of the prior art references cited by defendant, plaintiffs specifically challenge the applicability of the Bendix-Stromberg carburetor and the Mock patent 2,414,322. It is argued by plaintiffs that the '556 fuel metering control is distinguishable from either the Mock control or the Bendix-Stromberg carburetor because the enrichment valves used in the latter two devices respond solely to engine speed irrespective of changes in altitude or air pressure. This difference in the structure of the Mock and Bendix-Stromberg controls and in the '556 control is not patentably significant since the enrichment valves of both are controlled in a manner similar and equivalent to the manner in which the '556 valve is controlled.
The most pertinent of the prior art references relied upon by defendant to show the invalidity of the '902 patent are the Beggio patent 2,318,036, the Pescara patent 2,292,288, and the Wunsch and Chandler patents mentioned above. All of these prior patents are discussed in detail in the accompanying findings. These prior patents disclose all of the elements and combinations of elements defined by the '902 patent claims in suit. For this reason the '902 claims do not meet the requisites for patentability specified in section 102, paragraphs (a), (b), or (e) quoted above.
Plaintiffs in urging the inapplicability of the prior art references relied upon by defendant have made a brief analysis of each of these references and contend that they do not disclose the essential features of the '902 patent. Plaintiffs in reaching this conclusion relied on their four paragraph characterization (finding 42) of the alleged invention described in the '902 patent, and did not compare the actual combinations of elements recited by the various claims of the '902 patent in suit with the prior art cited by defendants. Assuming while not conceding that the prior art does not meet the combination of elements recited in plaintiff’s four [842] paragraph characterization of the alleged invention, of the '902 patent, this is immaterial in making a determination of the validity of the '902 patent claims. It is only the claims themselves which can be considered in determining whether the requirements specified in the patent statutes have been met. See Paper Bag Patent Case, 210 U.S. 405, 419 (1908). Courts have long held that a claim is not “like a nose of wax which may be turned and twisted in any direction” to make it include something not expressly recited. See White v. Dunbar, 119 U.S. 47, 51 (1886). See also Kuhne Identification Systems v. United States, 82 Ct. Cl. 237, 258 (1936). The elements of the '902 patent claims in suit when individually compared with the prior art do not define a patentable advancement over this art and are found invalid.
A number of the claims in suit are vague, ambiguous, and indefinite and fail to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 which provides:
‡ * *
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Hi % H* ❖ ❖
The purpose of the above section is to apprise the public of the limits of the invention so that others may use that which is not protected. Reggio in many instances has left in doubt what he regarded as the boundaries of his inventions and just what he regarded as his inventions. This doubt has made it impossible for the public to ascertain the limits of his inventions, if any.
Defendant has urged that because plaintiffs Pratt and Whitney Company, Inc. and Chandler-Evans Corp. are not the owners of the patents in suit they do not have sufficient interest in the patents to maintain these suits. This matter has been previously resolved by this court in Pratt and Whitney Company, Inc., et al. v. United States, 139 Ct. Cl. 540, 153 F. Supp. 409 (1957) and need not be given further consideration here.
Defendant has also contended that it received an implied license to use the subject matter of the two patents here in suit because certain plaintiffs obtained these patents as a [843] result of knowledge obtained through a confidential relationship with defendant, and that plaintiffs are therefore prohibited from asserting a claim against defendant. The evidence does not substantiate this contention.
It is recommended that the court find that none of the claims relied upon by plaintiffs are infringed by any of the accused fuel controls and that the Reggio patents 2,435,902 and 2,673,556 are invalid.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. These are eight suits brought under the provisions of 28 U.S.C., § 1498. Plaintiffs seek to recover reasonable and entire compensation for unauthorized use and manufacture by or for the United States of inventions disclosed in and covered by United States Letters Patent 2,435,902, hereinafter referred to as '902, issued to plaintiff Reggio on February 10, 1948, entitled “Fuel Metering Device,” and United States Letters Patent 2,673,556, hereinafter referred to as '556, issued to plaintiff Reggio on March 30, 1954, entitled “Engine Fuel Control.” The essentials of each of the suits are set forth as follows:
(a) Petition 81-57 was filed by Pratt and Whitney on February 20, 1957, for infringement of Patent '902 from January 10, 1955, the date of Pratt & Whitney’s ownership of its exclusive right to make, use, and sell the device claimed in the aircraft and guided missile fields, to the date of filing of the petition. The petition specified fuel control model VS-2 manufactured by the Pierce Governor Company, Inc., of Anderson, Indiana. By motion Pratt and Whitney requested that Reggio, who holds a reversionary interest in the patent, be notified to appear as a plaintiff. By the opinion of the court in Pratt and Whitney Company et al. v. United States, 139 Ct. Cl. 540, 153 F. Supp. 409, 114 U.S.P.Q. 246 (1957), Reggio was “required to appear and present any claim he may have in the subject matter of the litigation.” On October 23,1957, Reggio joined this suit as a voluntary plaintiff.
(b) Petition 82-57 was filed by Pratt and Whitney on February 20, 1957, for infringement of both patents from the date of Pratt and Whitney’s ownership of its exclusive right [844] to make, use, and sell in the aircraft and guided missile fields to the date of filing of the petition. This petition initially specified fuel control models AJ-A2 and TJ-A3 but was later amended to specify model JFC-12 for the period January 10, 1955, to August 14, 1958, with respect to both the '902 patent and the '556 patent. In this case, too, request was made that Reggio be notified to appear, and the court issued the same order as in 81-57. On October 23, 1957, Reggio joined as a voluntary plaintiff.
(c) Petition 458-57 was filed by Reggio on October 2,1957, for infringement of the '902 patent prior to Pratt and Whitney’s date of ownership of its exclusive rights to make, use, and sell in the aircraft and guided missile fields. This petition specified fuel control model VS-2. The effective period of this suit is October 2, 1951, to January 10, 1955.
(d) Petition 459-57 was filed 'by Reggio on October 2,1957, for infringement of both of the patents in suit prior to Pratt and Whitney’s date of ownership of its exclusive right to make, use, and sell in the aircraft and guided missile fields. This petition initially specified fuel control models AJ-A2 and TJ-A3, but was later amended to specify control model JFC-12. The effective period of this suit for models AJ-A2 and TJ-A3 is October 2, 1951, to January 10, 1955, for the '902 patent and from March 30,1954, to January 10,1955, for the '556 patent; the period covered for the JFC-12 is August 14,1952, to January 10,1955.
(e) Petition 5-59 was filed by Reggio on January 5, 1959, for infringement of both the '556 and the '902 patents. It was later amended to specify a number of fuel control models and predecessor models of the VS-2. The charges as to the predecessor models of the VS-2 were subsequently withdrawn. This suit covers the periods January 5, 1953, and March 30, 1954, to January 10, 1955, for the '902 and '556 patents respectively.
(f) Petition 6-59 was filed by Pratt and Whitney and Reggio on January 5,1959, for infringement of both the '556 and the '902 patents from the date Pratt and Whitney acquired the exclusive right to make, use, and sell in the aircraft and guided missile fields to the date of filing of suit 6-59. [845] It was later amended to specify a number of fuel control models.
(g) Petition 7-61 was filed by Eeggio on January 10, 1961, to cover the period January 10,1955, to September 30, 1955, in the event the retroactive assignment executed by plaintiff Reggio and the Niles-Bemont-Pond Co. on September 30,1930, is violative of the Anti-Assignment Statute, 31 U.S.C. 203. It is plaintiff’s position that the assignment was effective as of January 10, 1955, and that infringement in the above period should be covered by 82-57. This petition specified about twenty-three models and predecessor models of the VS-2 control.
(h) Petition 113-61 was filed by Chandler-Evans and Reggio on March 24,1961, for infringement of both the '556 and '902 patents during the period January 5, 1959, to the date of filing of this suit. This petition was later amended to include fuel control models AJ-A2, IEC, JEC-25, MFC-2, VS-2, WGC, and TJ-A3.
2. The identity of the parties plaintiff and their relation to each of the eight suits is as follows: Reggio, a resident of Norwalk, Connecticut, is and has been throughout the life of the patents the holder of the legal title. Pratt and Whitney, a Delaware corporation with an office at West Hartford, Connecticut, was exclusive licensee under the patents in the aircraft field in which infringement is charged from the effective date of the exclusive license until January 2, 1959. As noted in paragraphs (a) and (b) of finding 1, the relation of Reggio and Pratt and Whitney to suits 81-57 and 82-57 is set forth in the court’s opinion of July 12, 1957, cited above. Chandler-Evans, a Delaware corporation having an office at West Hartford, Conn., is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pratt and Whitney which acquired from Pratt and Whitney by an agreement dated January 2,1959, and executed February 15, 1959, all of the rights under the '556 and '902 patents then owned by Pratt and Whitney.
3. Pursuant to the commissioner’s order dated July 3, 1961, all eight cases were consolidated for trial. It was further ordered by the commissioner that the trial be limited to issues relating to the right of plaintiffs to recover, [846] and that issues relating to the amount of recovery, if any, be deferred until the issues concerned with the right to recover have been decided. The trial involved the issues of validity of 31 claims of the '902 patent and 24 claims of the '556 patent and the infringement of one or more of those claims by various fuel controls. Also the questions of jurisdiction of the court under 28 U.S.C. 1498 to hear the case and whether defendants were licensees were considered at the trial. Originally the plaintiffs alleged infringement of nine basic fuel control models and numerous predecessor models of said nine models with a total of 541 different charges of infringement being involved. Plaintiffs have since withdrawn all issues but those listed below. The specific issues as to claims and infringing devices are as follows:
4. Defendant has in effect admitted the procurement of at least one of each of the accused controls during a period covered by at least one of the cases in suit and that each of the cases in suit covers a period in which at least one of the accused controls was purchased.
REGGIO PATENT 2,673,556
5. The '556 patent in suit discloses an aircraft engine fuel metering device designed to control the fuel-air ratio during
[0]
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" width="2567"/>
[847] varied engine operating conditions. The patent teaches a fuel metering system wherein the pressure drop across a fuel orifice is continually varied as a function of mass air flow, measured by a Venturi and density bellows associated with a variable area air diaphragm; the size of said fuel orifice being adapted, at any specific condition, to be varied by any one of four independent parameters imposed on a fuel valve by means of mutually overriding cams. The '556 patent contains one drawing which is reproduced herein.
6. The fuel system disclosed in the '556 patent has an engine driven fuel pump 47 drawing fuel from a fuel supply 81 through an orifice 82, the effective area of which is controlled by a metering valve 88. The pump discharges fuel to the engine fuel supply manifolds which in turn supply the fuel injector nozzles 9 in the engine cylinders. Air under pressure is delivered through manifold 97 connected with the cylinder inlet ports. Excess fuel in the supply manifolds is circulated back to the inlet side of the pump through a by-pass conduit in which there is a regulating valve 85 controlling an orifice 87 through which the excess fuel flows back to the intake side of the pump 47. The fuel flow through the metering valve orifice 82 is equal to the engine fuel consumption. The regulating valve 85 is actuated by two pressure-responsive diaphragms 89 and 90 and is subject to the load of spring 115. Diaphragm 89 is subjected to the difference in pressures between the by-pass conduit and the fuel supply 81. Diaphragm 90 applies to valve 85 a force determined by Venturi air flow responsive mechanism and hydraulic servo motor 103 controlled by air density responsive bellows 104, which increases the effect of diaphragm 90 with increase of Venturi air density and loads the valve 85 in a direction to decrease the open area of the pressure regulating orifice 87. The input signal or force imposed on valve 85 by diaphragm 90 is thus a measure of engine air flow and any variation in the Venturi differential pressure or in the pressure and/or temperature of the air surrounding the bellows 104 actuates the valve 85 to alter the pressure head across the restriction 82 of the metering valve. A change in the speed of the engine is accompanied by a corresponding variation in engine air flow, and [848] variations in engine speed cause operation of the valve 85. The adjustable spring 115 biases the by-pass valve 85 in a direction assisting the pressure tending to close the valve orifice 87. The force of spring 115 is negligible when the engine operates at normal speeds.
7. To regulate the engine fuel-air ratio, manual as well as automatic control of valve 83, which is spring pressed toward closure, is provided to adjust the effective area of the orifice 82. This regulation is effected by four cams. One of these cams, 116, is manually controlled. The second, 117, is connected to a manifold air pressure responsive bellows 118. The third, 119, is responsive to engine speed measured by the fuel pressure drop sensed by diaphragm 120 across a fixed orifice 121 on the discharge side of the fuel pump 47. The members 47, 119, 120, and 121 are said to operate as a speed governor. The fourth cam, 122, is actuated by a bellows 123 connected to an element 124 responsive to the manifold air temperature and preferably also responsive in predetermined degree to the engine cylinder temperature. The patentee during the prosecution of the patent noted that the cams do not have a cumulative effect but rather operate independently and each may override the others and take over exclusive control.
8. The specification of the '556 patent makes no reference specifically to turbine-type engines. The '556 patent discloses only the application of an engine fuel control to a combustion engine having cylinders.
,9. Plaintiffs, as was indicated in finding 3, have asserted that 24 claims of the '556 patent have been infringed by the procurement and unauthorized use by defendant of the Bendix Gas Turbine Fuel Control Model TJ-A3, hereinafter referred to as the TJ-A3. Of these 24 claims, plaintiffs confined their proofs during trial to the following 7 claims:
Patent Claim, 1 of '556
In a system for controlling the flow of liquid fuel to the combustion chamber of an engine, means defining a flow passage for the fuel having a variable feed restriction therein, a first valve for selectively varying the area of said restriction to accelerate and decelerate the engine, a speed governor arranged to be driven from [849] the engine for actuating said first valve, a regulator valve movable to different positions to control the metering head across said restriction, means for automatically varying the position of said regulator valve with changes of engine speed, and means responsive to changes in pressure of the air flowing to the combustion chamber for modifying the action of the regulator valve.
Patent Claim 2 of '556
In a system for controlling the flow of liquid fuel to the combustion chamber of an engine having an engine driven compressor for supplying air under pressure to the combustion chamber, means defining a flow passage for the fuel having a variable feed restriction therein, a first valve to selectively vary the area of the restriction, a speed governor for actuating said first valve, a regulator valve movable to different positions to adjust the metering head across said restriction, pressure responsive means connected to the regulator valve, means for automatically producing a differential across said pressure responsive means varying with variations in engine speed, and means responsive to changes in pressure of the air flowing to the compressor for modifying said differential.
Patent Claim 3 of '556
In a system for controlling the flow of liquid fuel to an engine having a compressor supplying air under pressure, means defining a flow passage for the fuel having a variable feed restriction therein, a valve for varying the area of said restriction, a manually operable member operatively connected to said valve, an engine driven speed governor also having an operative connection with said valve, a regulator valve movable to different positions to adjust the metering head across said restriction, pressure responsive means connected to the regulator valve, means for subjecting said pressure responsive means to a differential varying with variations in engine speed to automatically maintain the rate of fuel feed within predetermined limits during acceleration and deceleration, and_ means responsive to changes in pressure of the air flowing to the compressor for modifying said differential.
Patent Claim J¡. of '556
In a system for controlling the flow of liquid fuel to an engine, means defining a flow passage for the fuel having a variable feed restriction therein, a valve for [850] varying the area of the restriction, manual means and engine speed responsive means for controlling the valve, a regulator valve controlling flow of fuel through said restriction, pressure responsive means connected to said regulator valve, means creating a force on said pressure responsive means in a direction tending to increase the flow of fuel through said restriction varying with variations in engine speed, and means for subjecting said pressure responsive means during operation of the engine to the differential feed pressure across said restriction in a direction tending to decrease the flow of fuel through said restriction.
Patent Claim 5 of '556
A system as claimed in claim 4 wherein means are provided for pressuring fuel to said regulator valve including an engine driven supply pump.
Patent Claim 8 of '556
In a system for controlling the flow of liquid fuel to an engine having an engine driven compressor for supplying air under pressure, means defining a flow passage for the fuel having a variable feed restriction therein, a valve to selectively vary the area of the restriction, a speed governor actuating said valve, a regulator valve movable to different positions to adjust the metering head across said restriction, pressure responsive means connected to the regulator valve, means for automatically producing a differential across said pressure responsive means varying with variations in engine speed, and means responsive to changes in temperature of the air flowing to the compressor for modifying said differential.
Patent Claim IS of '556
In a system for supplying liquid fuel to an engine, one or more fuel discharge nozzles, a pump for supplying fuel under pressure to said nozzles, a fuel conduit communicating said pump with said nozzles and having a metering restriction therein upstream of the nozzles, adjustable valve means for varying the flow through said restriction, manual means for adjusting said valve means, an engine driven governor operatively connected to said valve means for automatically adjusting the latter, and means responsive to changes in the pressure of the air flowing to the engine arranged to adjust the flow through said restriction independently of said governor.
10. The above seven claims include all elements or combinations of elements allegedly contained in the TJ-A3. The
[0]
[851] remaining 17 claims charged as being infringed are drawn to various combinations of the elements recited in the above seven claims. Plaintiffs’ expert witness, Mr. Milton Chandler, identified the elements of these seven claims and related them to the allegedly corresponding elements of the accused TJ-A3 fuel control.
11. The source of the term “governor” recited in claims 1, 2, 3, 8, and 13 is apparently Mock’s patents 2,581,276 and 2,581,275 with which Eeggio unsuccessfully attempted to invoke an interference during the prosecution of the '556 patent application in the U.S. Patent Office. The governor disclosed in these Mock patents is of the fly-ball type and is used to regulate the speed of a gas turbine engine. The '556 disclosure contains no reference to a “governor.”
ACCUSED TJ-A3 CONTROL
.12. The Bendix Gas Turbine Control TJ-A3, which is charged to infringe claims 1-22, 33, and 34 of the '556 patent, is designed to meter fuel in a gas turbine type jet engine. This control is shown in the drawing reproduced herein and is described in plaintiffs’ exhibit 15, Air Force handbook AN 03-10BLA-1 dated May 19, 1950. Both parties have agreed that this publication illustrates the accused structure. The TJ-A3 was placed in use in 1946 on an Allison jet engine.
13. The TJ-A3 operates in the following manner: Fuel is supplied to the main control unit by a dual engine-driven fuel pump. As the fuel enters the unit, a by-pass and relief valve assembly regulates the amount of fuel being by-passed back to the inlet side of the fuel pump so as to maintain a constant pressure drop between fuel inlet pressure and metered fuel pressure (manifold pressure).
14. In the TJ-A3, the fuel, at the pressure determined by the by-pass valve, then flows to a regulator valve which adjusts the unmetered fuel pressure so as to maintain the desired fuel metering head (unmetered fuel pressure minus metered fuel pressure) across the governor valve in proportion to engine speed and inlet air density. The thrust from the centrifugal head generating weights, which sense changes in engine speed, is applied to a shaft on which the regulator [852] valve is mounted and to which the metering head diaphragm is attached. The opposing forces of the centrifugal weights tending to open the regulator valve and of the pressure differential across the metering head diaphragm tending to close it, control the opening of the regulator valve to provide the unmetered fuel pressure to furnish the required metering head across the governor valve, increasing with increasing engine speed and decreasing with decreasing engine speed at any given air density. The desired engine speed is selected by the pilot’s throttle lever, the movement of which determines the degree of opening of the throttle valve and sets up a definite governor valve spring force tending to open the valve, in opposition to the centrifugal governor weights which tend to close it. The density compensating circuit acts to maintain the pilot-selected engine speed during changes in temperature and altitude, thus preventing over-speeding of the engine and excessive engine temperatures which would result otherwise from governor droop. Governor droop is a situation which arises upon changes of load; i.e., if the load decreases, the governor would tend to let the engine overspeed if a compensating or corrective means were not provided. The density aneroid bellows responds to changes in air density and temperature and controls the position of the density compensating needle in- its orifice. Movement of this needle causes an increase or decrease in the flow of unmetered fuel through the density circuit control jets in the metering head diaphragm. This results in a change in force upon the metering head diaphragm. An increased force on the metering head diaphragm due for example to decreasing air density or increasing air temperature will move the regulator valve toward closed position, and cause lowering of the pressure of the unmetered fuel and a decrease of the metering head across the governor valve. The reverse occurs with increasing air density or decreasing air temperature.
TJ--A3 INFRINGEMENT ISSUE
15. The structural assembly of the TJ-A3 varies substantially from the fuel control described and illustrated in the '556 patent, and plantiffs have admitted that the TJ-A3 [853] does not employ the particular structure of the '556 patent. The question presented is whether there is sufficient identity of structure, operation, and result to support the plaintiffs’ allegation of patent infringement.
16. During the trial, defendant introduced through its expert witness, Mr. Howard J. Williams, substantial arguments in support of its contention that the TJ-A3 does not infringe any of the claims of the '556 patent. Mr. Williams developed the TJ-Al and TJ-A2 gas turbine fuel controls which were the predecessor models of the TJ-A3.
17. There is a significant difference in function as well as structure and result between the '556 control and the TJ-A3. The Eeggio control shown and described in the '556 patent is not suitable for use on a gas turbine jet aircraft, but is disclosed for use only with piston-type engines, whereas the TJ-A3 control was used only on jet aircraft engines and is not adapted for use with a piston-type engine. During the prosecution of the parent application for patent of which the '556 patent is an alleged division, Eeggio was advised of this fact when he attempted to invoke an interference with the Pearl patent 2,642,718 which had claims drawn to a control mechanism for “a gas turbine power plant.” Eeggio stated at this time, “It is believed that the limitation gas turbine which applicant cannot make is immaterial.” The patent examiner in response stated that because of the differences in the engines (piston and turbine), the respective controls used for each could not be considered as functional equivalents. The TJ-A3 was designed to avoid compressor surge or stall, acceleration blowout, and deceleration die-out, problems peculiar to gas turbine jet engines and represent considerations foreign to the control described in the '556 patent.
18. Plaintiff Chandler-Evans Corporation’s patent counsel, Mr. Augustin M. Prentiss, who is a patentee and a man of long experience in the field, urged at one time that jet engines and the structure associated therewith were non-analogous to piston engine controls such as those described by Eeggio in the patents in suit. In the prosecution of the Chandler application for U.S. patent 2,972,299 against which [854] both of tbe Eeggio patents here in suit were cited Mr. Prentiss stated in an attempt to distinguish over these patents:
Before discussing the disclosures of the references, it is pertinent to point out that the patents to Chandler, Stokes and Eeggio pertain to pis ton- iype engines driving propellers; the patents to Chamberlain, Holley and Halford to turbine engines driming propellers; and only the patent to Neal pertains to turbo-jet engines and this patent is cited only as disclosing the lubricating feature of Claim 2.
It is thus apparent at the outset that none of the references (except Neal) are concerned with the problems of turbo-jet propulsion aircraft to which applicant’s invention is addressed. Since the art and science of turbo-jet propulsion of aircraft differs so fundamentally from propeller propulsion, the two fields have little in common. The piston-engine art is still more remote from the turbo-jet engine art and the two differ so radically, as to have practically nothing in common. This being the case, it is clear that the references (except Neal) disclose nothing to aid in the solution of the manifold and complex problems that arise in the art of turbo-jet aircraft propulsion, and therefore the references do not, in any real sense, constitute anticipations of applicant’s invention. (Emphasis quoted.)
19. Another basic difference in the function of the two devices is the fact the '556 control is designed to maintain a constant fuel-to-air ratio in an engine. The '556 patent specification states:
An object of the invention is to provide an improved engine fuel control, which automatically and under all operating conditions whether steady or transient maintains the ratio between engine fuel flow and engine air flow within predetermined upper and lower limits.
The accused TJ-A3 control in contrast is incapable of regulating the fuel-to-air ratio, and this function is neither essential nor a problem in the operation of a gas turbine jet engine. Plaintiffs’ expert, Mr. Prentiss, in other patent applications prosecuted before the Patent Office, also emphasized this difference in the operation of piston-type engines and jet engines. For example he stated in the prosecution of the Lee patent 2,668,416:
[855] In connection with the foregoing, it is pertinent to point out that while the operation of piston type combustion engines (such as are involved in Stoke’s apparatus) is based upon controlling the flow of air to the engine and the fuel flow is adjusted to such air flow in order to form the desired mixture; the exact opposite principle of operation is employed in turbojet engines, where the flow of air is not controlled (as by a throttle) and the operation of the engine is controlled by regulating the fuel flow into the combustion chamber. The reason for this basic difference in the operation of the control piston type engine as compared to the turbojet engine, is that in the former it is necessary to maintain a close and definite quantitative ratio between the mass air flow and the fuel flow, whereas in the latter, no such close relationship is maintained or attempted. On the contrary, in turbojet engines the rate of mass air flow is many-fold greater than that required to form a proper combustible mixture with the rate of fuel flow, the excess air being utilized to promote the combustion of the fuel/air mixture. (Emphasis added.)
20. The TJ-A3 is essentially a governor which functions to maintain constant engine speed. A centrifugal flyweight arrangement is used to effect this control. The '556 control does not operate as a true governor since it does not control engine r.p.m., but rather is designed primarily to control the fuel-air ratio and the engine speed is controlled by a butterfly valve (air throttle 95), which varies the air flow.
21. Both the '556 control and the accused TJ-A3 device possess bellows which are responsive to air density and temperature and in a broad sense both regulate a valve assembly to adjust the metering head across a restriction; however, the bellows of the '556 control measures mass air flow whereas the bellows (density aneroid) of the accused structure is not responsive to either volumetric or mass air flow. Also, the bellows 104 of the '556 control does not affect the speed of the aircraft. The density aneroid of the TJ-A3 compensates for governor droop and operates to control the fuel flow and consequently the engine speed as conditions vary. The '556 control and the TJ-A3 also differ in arrangement. In the TJ-A3 the fuel passes from the pump to the regulator valve and then through a variable orifice in the governor valve. The '556 control is arranged in an inverse order as [856] the fuel flows first through the variable orifice 82 and is combined with the excess fuel from the regulator by-pass valve 85, and thence passes through the pump to fuel nozzles. In the '556 control, the amount of fuel allowed to pass through the orifice 82 is controlled by recirculating excess fuel, while in the TJ-A3, the regulator valve is in series with the governor valve and pump, and directly controls the fuel passing through the governor valve.
22. A comparison of the '556 claims and the TJ-A3 control follows:
(a) Claim 1 recites, a first valve * * * to accelerate a/nd decelerate the engine. The specification fails to disclose a valve (or any other means) capable of accelerating or decelerating the engine; thus this limitation cannot be applied because of lack of support, and claim 1 is not infringed by the T J-A3 control.
(b) Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and and 13 all recite either an engi/ne or the combustion chamber of an engine. In order for the structure disclosed in the '556 patent to be operative the engine referred to must be of the piston type since the '556 control could not be utilized on a gas turbine engine. Furthermore, Reggio admitted during the prosecution of the '556 application in the Patent Office that he could not make limitations to gas turbine engines. The terminology of the above seven claims cannot be applied to a turbine engine structure and these claims are not infringed by the accused TJ-A3 control, which can be employed effectively only on turbine engines. All of the remaining claims alleged to be infringed but which were not compared with the accused structure during the trial, claims 6, T, 9-12, 14 — 22, 33, and 34, possess an equivalent limitation, i.e., either an engine or a powerplant, which again necessarily must be construed to mean a piston-type engine or powerplant, and these claims likewise are not infringed. None of the claims of the '556 patent asserted, namely, 1-22, 33, and 34 are infringed by the manufacture, sale, or use of the TJ-A3 control.
(c) Claims 1, 2, 3, 8, and 13 recite a governor, i.e., a speed governor or an engine driven speed governor. What the patentee intended by the use of these terms is not clear since [857] there is no description of a governor in the patent specification. Plaintiffs urge in requests for findings that the term governor used in the above '556 patent claims refers to a combination of parts including the fuel pump 47, fuel pressure responsive diaphragm 120, and valve-operating cam mechanism 119. The governor of the Eeggio control does not operate in the normal manner for, as was pointed out in-finding 20, it does not control speed, but rather operates in the maimer of a choke to control the richness of the mixture. The component of the TJ-A3 control designated by plaintiffs as a governor, the centrifugal governor, operates in the conventional sense in that it controls engine speed by appropriately varying fuel flow in inverse relation to engine r.p.m. variations. For example, if engine speed increases, fuel flow is thereupon decreased to reduce and restore engine speed to the desired r.p.m. Conversely, the '556 control increases fuel flow with an increase in engine speed. Claims 7, 9, 10-12, 15-22, 33, and 34, the elements of which were not read upon the TJ-A3 during the trial but which are also urged by plaintiffs to be infringed, contain similar governor limitations and the comments above are equally applicable thereto. None of the claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 10-12, 13, 15-22, 33, or 34 are infringed by the TJ-A3 control.
(d) Claims 4 and 5 call for the subjecting of the pressure responsive means (diaphragms 89 and 90) to the differential feed pressure across restriction 82. The Eeggio control has the diaphragm 89 connected on opposite sides to the upstream and downstream pressures adjacent to the orifice 82, and the differential pressure across the restriction is the same as the differential pressure across the diaphragm. This pressure differential is metered fuel pressure opposed to unmetered fuel pressure. In the accused TJ-A3 structure, the metering head diaphragm which has been alleged by plaintiffs to be the counterpart of diaphragms 89 and 90 is not subjected to the same differential pressure as the '556 control. Claims 6, 20, and 21 urged by plaintiffs as being infringed but not discussed during the trial by plaintiffs’ expert, Mr. Chandler, recite a similar limitation, claim 6 stating that said diaphragm means during operation of the engine being subjected to the diferential feed pressure across said restriction, [858] and claims 20 and 21 stating that the pressure responsive means be arranged, to respond to the drop across said restriction. The differences noted above are applicable to these claims as well. There is no infringement of claims 4, 5, 6, 20, and 21 by the TJ-A3 control.
(e) Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 specify that the '556 control possess a pressure responsive means or diaphragm which is subjected to a differential pressure which varies with air speed. For example, claim 2 states means for automatically producing a differential across said pressure responsive means varying with variations in engine speed; claim 3 recites means for subjecting said pressure responsive means to a differential varying with variations in engine speed; claim 4 recites means creating a force on said pressure responsive means in a direction tending to increase the flow of fuel through said restriction varying with variations in engine speed; claim 5 is dependent on 4; and claim 8 recites means for automatically producing a differential across said pressure responsive means varying roith variations in engine speed. The diaphragm or pressure responsive means referred to in these claims is an air diaphragm associated with a Venturi mechanism by which it is subjected to differential air pressure which varies with engine speed. The accused structure does not possess an air diaphragm and cannot be equated with the metering head diaphragm of the TJ-A3 control which is directly subject only to fuel pressure differences. The TJ-A3 does not have a Venturi and is not subject to differential air pressure which varies with air flow or with engine speed. Similarly, claim 9 which was not included in plaintiffs’ proofs at trial but is urged as being infringed calls for, means for subjecting said pressure responsive means to a differential varying with variations in engine speed, and does not, for the reasons discussed above, read on the accused TJ-A3 structure.
(f) Claim 14 describes the cooperative effort of diaphragms 89 and 90 with the Venturi mechanism to regulate the fuel-air ratio control means. The TJ-A3, as has been previously noted, is not concerned with the control of the fuel-air ratio and is incapable of maintaining such a ratio. There is no infringement of claim 14 by the TJ-A3 control.
[859] (g) Claims 14, 18, and 19 include means for monitoring engine or powerplant air flow. A Venturi is employed by Reggio to perform this function. The accused device bas no Venturi and does not measure air flow. Claims 14, 18, and 19 are not infringed by the TJ-A3 control.
23. Summarizing, it is concluded that none of the 24 claims relied upon by plaintiffs are infringed by the manufacture, use, or sale of the Bendix TJ-A3 turbine fuel control. The TJ-A3 and the '556 control perform significantly different functions to achieve different results, and the mere reading of words upon the accused device does not under those circumstances warrant a finding of infringement. The possibility of finding infringement is further obviated by the fact defendant has cited numerous prior art references including many of Reggio’s which deal with subject matter closely related to that covered in the '556 patent. The claims, in order to be valid at all over these references, must be strictly construed. Such a construction precludes any possibility of infringement by the TJ-A3 control.
REGGIO 2,673,556 INVALID
24. Defendant has advanced the following allegations in support of its contention that the Reggio patent 2,673,556 is invalid:
(a) The claims of the Reggio patent 2,378,036 which issued June 12,1945, on an application filed July 7,1941, fully cover the claimed subject matter of the '556 patent and the latter is invalid for double patenting.
(b) The subject matter of the claims of the '556 patent relied upon was presented for the first time in Reggio’s application for patent 6 years after the TJ-A3 control was in public use, and that the claims are thus invalid due to late claiming and laches.
(c) The subject matter of the '556 claims here in issue was fully dedicated to the public in 1945 by the issuance of Reggio patent 2,378,036.
(d) The claims to the '556 patent are not supported by the specification.
(e) The claims of the '556 patent in issue are anticipated by prior patents and publications having dates earlier than [860] the earliest possible date to which the subject matter of these claims is entitled. These prior patents and publications are as follows:
Hillbouse _ 1,483, 883 Feb. 19,1924
Jivbovitcb_ 2,193, 927 Mar. 19,1940
Chandler_ 2, 224,472 Dee. 10,1940
Hogg - 2.303, 640 Dec. 1, 1942
Wunsch_ 2, 341,257 Feb. 8, 1944
Mock _ 2,414,322 Jan. 14, 1947
Mock - 2,447,261 Aug. 17,1948
Beardsley_ 2,447,264 Aug. 17,1948
Beardsley-2,447, 265 Aug. 17,1948
Beardsley_ 2,447,266 Aug. 17,1948
Aero Digest, article, page 128. April 1940
25. With regard to the issue of double patenting, it is defendant’s contention that the patentee, Reggio, claimed both broadly and narrowly in his earlier patent 2,378,036, filed July 7,1941, and issued June 12,1945, all of the subject matter of the '556 patent claims in suit and that those claims are invalid as representing an attempt to unduly extend the patent monopoly. The '036 patent application, Ser. No. 401,353, antedates the patent application of the '556 patent, Ser. No. 508,897, by over 2 years. The '036 patent issued approximately 9 years before the '556 patent issued.
26. The '036 patent, Fig. 1 of which is reproduced at page 31, relates to, inter alia, a fuel metering system for internal combustion engines. The patent discloses a fuel metering device which comprises a fuel flow passage 18, 20 (81, 92) ,
Footnotes
170 Ct. Cl. 829 (Pratt & Whitney Co. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.