Shipman Engine Co. v. Tool-Works, Ltd.

34 F. 747, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2357
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York
DecidedApril 16, 1888
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 F. 747 (Shipman Engine Co. v. Tool-Works, Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Shipman Engine Co. v. Tool-Works, Ltd., 34 F. 747, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2357 (circtndny 1888).

Opinion

Wallace, J.

This suit is brought to restrain infringement of letters patent No. 304,365, dated September 2, 1884, granted to Albert 11, Shipman for “hydro-carbon furnace.” The defense of prior public use. [748]*748based upon the experiments made with the apparatus of Marvin E. Otis, need not be considered, as the record discloses diothing to modify the opinion expressed at the hearing of the cause, that this defense only presents an instance of an experimental use, which did not and could not demonstrate, a practical realization of the apparatus of the patent.

The real question in the case is whether there was any patentable novelty in Shipman’s apparatus in view of the prior state of the art. He makes no pretensions to being a pioneer in utilizing liquid fuel as a substitute for coal or other bulkier or more expensive fuels for producing heat or steam. He assumes to have invented certain improvements in hydro-carbon furnaces, which consist of a combination of devices for regulating more efficiently the rate of combustion by the degree of steam-pressure in the boiler. Although he contemplated the application of his devices more particularly to steam-engines designed for driving light machinery, what he devised, and what his patent describes, is an improvement in a hydro-carbon burner for use under a steam-boiler of any kind, effected by a combination of parts, each of which was old and well known when he took up the subject, several of which had previously been used in such burners to perform in combination the functions they performed in his apparatus, but all of which had never before been combined together in the same apparatus. The patent describes a steam-boiler, which may be of any known form; an oil reservoir, which is to contain the liquid fuel, and from which the liquid fuel is drawn upward; two pipes, one leading from the reservoir for conducting the oil, and the other leading from the boiler for conducting the steam; a steam oil-atomizing jet, which is an atomizer formed by arranging the orifices of the pipes in such relation to each other that the steam will suck up the oil from the reservoir, and' spray the oil with which it comes in contact; and a steam regulator, which operates automatically by the pressure of steam in the boiler, to diminish or entirely cut off the supply of steam to the atomizing jet. The regulator is described in the specification as follows:

• “In order to provide for the regulation of the steam-pressure in the boiler, I combine with the pipe, K, which supplies steam to the atomizer, the regulator, I/. The regulator consists of a flexible diaphragm, it', (Pigs. 3 and 4,) arranged, in connection with a valve, s", to operate to reduce the supply of steam to the atomizer when the pressure in the boiler becomes too great. The' diaphragm, N', forms one side of a chamber, into which the steam is admitted through a pipe, t"', communicating with the boiler or steam-dome through a hollow boss, b"/. The diaphragm is provided at its center with a boss, u", into which the stem of the valve, s'', (Pig. 3,) is screwed. The head of the valve is fitted to a suitable valve-seat, v", (Pig. 3,) and it operates, when the diaphragm, N', is pressed outward, as represented by the dotted lines in Pig. 8, by the steam in the chamber, to diminish or entirely cut off the supply of steam to the atomizer. The amount of pressure which will be required to accomplish this result may be regulated by screwing the valve, s", in or oat of the boss, n/'. As shown in the drawings, this can only be effected when the pipe, K, is removed; the intention being to adjust the regulating valve at the factory before the engine is sent out, and to prevent any subsequent alteration of it. The practical effect of the regulator is that, if the pressure in the [749]*749boiler rises above any given point at which the valve is set, the supply of steam to the atomizer is entirely cut off, and the lire goes out. It will be noticed, also, that if the water should be entirely evaporated from the boiler there will be no more steam to supply the atomizer, and the fire in this case also will be extinguished. Provision is thus made for insuring entire sai'ety under any circumstances which may arise. I have demonstrated, by practical trials under various circumstances, that the regulator above described is highly efficient, and never fails to produce the desired results. In starting an engine provided with my improved regulator, I obtain a pressure of air in the boiler by means of an air-pump, or by turning the engine backward. 1 am aware that tlio supply of steam and liquid fuel to the furnace of a steam-boiler has been heretofore controlled by a diaphragm regulator operating to control valves in the supply-pipes, but such construction I do not claim, as in my invention the delivery of the liquid fuel is controlled by varying or cutting off the supply of steam to the atomizing device by a regulator operated by the pressure of the steam in the boiler. The construction of the regulator herein shown forms no part of the present invention, as it is my intention to file a separate application for letters patent on the novel features thereof.”

The claims of the patent are as follows: ,

“The combination with a steam-boiler, of an oil reservoir, a steam oil-atomizing jet, an oil conduit, a steam-supply pipe, K, and a steam regulator operating to vary or cut off the supply of steam from the boiler to the atomizer, substantially as and for the purposes set forth. (2) The combination, witli a steam-boiler, of an oil reservoir, the steam oil-atomizing jet and oil conduit located above the oil reservoir, and arranged to draw oil therefrom, and a steam-supply regulator, through which the steam passes on its way from the boiler to the atomizer, substantially as and for the purposes set forth.”

The prior state of the art is illustrated by United States patents granted to Van Norman, Brown & Morrison, dated August 1, 1865; to Joseph K. Caldwell, dated September 12, 1871, and March 19, 1872; to Abner Burbank, dated November 5, 1878; to J. L. Kite, dated March 8,1881; to Parle & Heath, dated October 11, 1881; and to E. N. Dickerson, Jr., dated April 18, 1882. The patent to Van Norman, Brown & Morrison is cited by the defendant as showing all the devices of Shipman’s apparatus in combination. The patent describes a complicated apparatus for commingling oil vaporized in a retort with superheated steam. The apparatus is a hydro-carbon furnace, in which the steam is carried from a boiler through a coil in the fire-box, by which it becomes superheated, and is then delivered to a steam jacket or chamber, which adds beat to a. retort already heated by the fire below it. Oil is delivered by means of another coil into the retort, and, after being there vaporized, the gas escapes through small holes in tlio retort, mingles with the superheated steam escaping through small holes in the steam jacket, and they are burned together. It does not contain an atomizer in any sense. It does contain an automatic regulator which operates by pressure in the boiler to shut oil the steam in the coil. The apparatus is so remote in principle, as well as in detail of construction and arrangement, from Hhip-man’s apparatus, that 3J could never have suggested any important feature in his. The patent does not contribute any light of value upon the case, and only incumbers the record. The patent to Park & Heath was not deemed of sufficient importance to be commented upon in the argu-[750]

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

Related

Shipman Engine Co. v. McLaughlin
62 F. 395 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 F. 747, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shipman-engine-co-v-tool-works-ltd-circtndny-1888.