Scarborough v. Neff

75 F. 579, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 3516

This text of 75 F. 579 (Scarborough v. Neff) 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
Scarborough v. Neff, 75 F. 579, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 3516 (circtndil 1895).

Opinion

81TOWALTEIÍ, Circuit Judge.

This action is for infringement of flie first and third claims of letters patent No. 217,243, for improvements in waste-pipe traps. The first claim is in words following:

(I) The combination, will; a. waste-pipe trap, of an air-chamber communicating with the lower and upper bends of the trap, substantially as described.

The third claim is in words following:

(3) The combination of the waste-pipe trap, the air-chamber communicating with the upper and lower bonds thereof, and the tap or plug, 1, located in line with the opening from the lower bend to Uie air-chamber, substantially as described.

Complainants, the patentees, say in their specification:

Our invention relates to liquid-weal mips for preventing the rising of deleterious gases, etc., through waste-pipes: and its object is to prevent the siphoning of such traps, by which the sealing liquid is drawn out and a free passage left for such gases.

Their first drawing discloses an S-shaped tube or trap — that is to say, an inlet-pipe, A. — descending into the lower bend, D, then rising in a curve, II, to the upper betid, E, then descending as the outlet-pipe, B. Above the bend, D, and resting thereon, is a chamber, C, circular in that vertical section which is longitudinal to the trap, with an aperture or openiug-, (>, at the bottom, extending through the upper surface of the said lower bend, D, and another opening at the top, connected by a pipe, F, with an opening through the upper surface of the upper bend, E, of the trap, this last-named connection being on the extreme summit of said upper bend.

The drawing Fig. I shows said tube filled with water, said chamber, C, and its connecting-pipe, F, being at the same time empty; that is, filled with air. The flow of water into the inlet-pipe. A, having ceased, it: is said, in substance, in the specification, that the fall of the water out of the upper bend, E, draws the air out of the chamber, [580]*5800, through the pipe, F, the water rising at the same time through the aperture, G-, into said chamber, 0, and that as soon as the. siphoning action, which goes on by the pressure of the air dowm the inlet-pipe, A, ceases, the water in the chamber, C, falls again through the aperture, G-, into the lower bend, I), and seals the trap.

In the third paragraph of their specification complainants speak of three devices or methods made use of prior to their invention to prevent or abate the effect of the siphoning action, and of objections to such methods. As to one of such methods they say:

A reservoir was connected with the bottom of tbe lower and upper bends of a goose-neck, the reservoir being made to contain sufficient water to seal the trap.

They go on to say, speaking of the objections to said enumerated current methods:

By our invention we have overcome all these difficulties by placing an air-chamber between the upper and lower bends of the trap, as will lie more fully described hereinafter.

They say further:

In the drawings we have shown our invention as applied to the ordinary S-trap. Figures I and II show the invention at different periods of its action. Fig. II also shows a modified form of connection between tbe air-chamber and the lower bend of the trap. A is the inlet end of the trap-pipe; D, the lower bend; E, the upper bend; B, the outlet; C, the air-chamber; F, the passage connecting the air-chamber and the upper bend; G. the orifice between the air-chamber and the lower bend; I, the tap or plug for cleansing, located preferably in line with orifice, G.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
75 F. 579, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 3516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scarborough-v-neff-circtndil-1895.