United Blue Flame Oil Stove Co. v. Silver & Co.

133 F. 47, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 5096
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York
DecidedNovember 1, 1904
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 133 F. 47 (United Blue Flame Oil Stove Co. v. Silver & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United Blue Flame Oil Stove Co. v. Silver & Co., 133 F. 47, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 5096 (circtedny 1904).

Opinion

THOMAS, District Judge.

The complainant is the assignee of certain letters patent, viz., letters No. 616,425, issued on December 20, 1898, to Ruppel, and letters No. 617,291, issued on January 3, 1899, to Jeavons. The defendant is alleged to infringe claims 6, 7, and 8 of the former and claims 22 and 23 of the latter. The defendant denies infringement, and alleges anticipation and absence of invention. The subject involves blue flame oil burners, and is of very considerable commercial and economic importance. Petroleum burned in a wick or other lighting device is converted to a vapor, which passes upward between two concentric tubes (herein called a “combustion chamber”) so perforated as to admit air, which, uniting with the vapor, ultimately forms carbon dioxide gas, or carbonic acid gas, which burns upon, and after passing out of, the tubes. That is, air passing from within and without, through the perforations to the space within the tubes, unites with the vapor therein, forms a gas, which is consumed largely after escaping into the open air. As the gas springs into flame after leaving the tubes or combustion chamber, its useful duty is to liberate its heat advantageously in direct contact with the utensil or surface placed above it, without throwing off offensive odors or unconsumed and poisonous elements. If the flame burn steadily, and blue in color, desirable combustion is evidenced. If the flame be yellow, imperfection of combustion and injurious results in use are indicated. Hence the production of a steady blue flame is the appearance sought, and to attain it burners of varied constructions have been devised. There has been a variety of devices for hindering or wholly preventing the passage of air to the upper part of the inner tube, and for the passage of the air admitted to such tube into the combustion chamber or to the flame. The uninterrupted passage of air through the whole length of the inner tube with a uniform opportunity to escape through its perforations into the combustion chamber would be injurious to the result desired. It is understood that the vapor, mingling with the air in the inferior part of the combustion chamber, and becoming gas, tends to reach the point of combustion as it rises, and that such combustion would take place disadvantageously within the tubes, rather than beneficially at the exit thereof, if the air supplied to the upper portion of the combustion chamber were not limited. Also, its increasing heat as the gas ascends tends to destroy the inner tube. Ruppel combined with the perforated tubes a chamber in the upper portion of the inner tube, closed the upper end with a cap and the lower end with a perforated partition or diaphragm; and to keep the upper inner sides of the inner tube cool Jeavons, among other things, provided for a partition or diaphragm with serrated or perforated edges, and located it below the upper end of the inner tube. Ruppel concluded, from the blue flame produced, and other favorable conditions, that there was an advantage in his device. Apparently he adjusted mechanical elements to facilitate phenomena that were recognized proof of a valuable result. Hence he invented, if anything, means to aid a known and desirable result. The most that can be [49]*49claimed for him is that he provided for parts and such mechanical adjustment thereof as would aid to cause proper combustion at an opportune location. But what did Ruppel construct, and what does he claim ? The following figure illustrates it:

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

Related

Hollifield v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.
172 N.C. 714 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
133 F. 47, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 5096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-blue-flame-oil-stove-co-v-silver-co-circtedny-1904.