pit, fire-grates, fire-chambers, and connecting and discharge pipes for forcing air from the outside into actual contact with the fire, and then driving the decomposed blast into casks, was not novel. The German publication described a mechanism substantially like the plaintiff's in construction, mode of operation, and effect. There was no invention in the manner in which the patentees applied the decomposed blast to the interior surface of casks, nor am I able to see that they were entitled to a patent for the use which they made of the hot blast. The patentees took old and well-known mechanical contrivances for accomplishing useful results and applied them to a new purpose. In this there was nothing to support a claim for a patentable invention or process. The various instrumentalities which the patentees employed in their use of the hot blast operated just as they had previously operated when the same blast was used for other purposes. They employed old mechanism without producing a new effect. It may be true that this device produced a better result, but that of itself was not enough to sustain the patent. In delivering the opinion of the court in Roberts v. Ryer (1 Otto, 150) Chief Justice Waite says:

It is no new invention to use an old machine for a new purpose. The inventor of the machine is entitled to the benefit of all uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.

And, says Justice Story iu Bean v. Smallwood (2 Story, 408)

The thing itself which is patented must be new and not the mere application of it to a new purpose or object.

The plaintiff's patent was not even for the application of an old machine to a new use. The interior of molds and other receptacles had been previously heated by a hot blast, and the patentees used a blast of the same character to heat the interior of beer-casks. No new ap plication of a natural force or element in nature was pointed out or described in the patent.

This case is different in some essential respects from the cases which were decided by Judges Blodgett and Dyer The bill is dismissed for want of equity.

United States Cirenit Court-Southern District of New York.]

Schneider v. LOVELL ET AL.

Decided February 10, 1882.

22 O. G., 499.

1. REISSUED LETTERS PATENt No. 7,511—Lamp-Burners-Inadequate Descrip

TION.

A patent for an improvement in shade-holders for lamps claimed, inter alia, a shade or globe so arranged and constructed that the burner performs its required functions without the use of a chimney, the specification affording no further explanation of the principle which is to govern the construction of the shade as to

its size and proportions, and it appearing from evidence produced that a shade made of the shape, size, and proportions illustrated in the drawings would not give light when used alone to the same degree as when used with an ordinary chimney, and that the shades actually used by the patentee and the defendants were not the shade of the drawings, but were the result of further adaptation and experiment, Held, that the words "whereby the burner performs its functions without the use of a chimney" mean that the arrangement will give as good a light as with the use of a chimney.

2. SAME-PATENT CONSTRUED.

That the most favorable view that can be taken of the patent is that it is for shade of the size, height, and proportion shown in the drawings.

3. SAME-INFRINGEMENT.

That as the defendants' shade was different from that shown in the drawings, it did not infringe.

Messrs. Gifford & Gifford for the plaintiff.

Mr. J. P. Fitch for the defendants.

BLATCHFORD, J.:

This suit is brought on Reissue Letters Patent No. 7,511, granted to the plaintiff February 13, 1877, for an improvement in shade-holders for lamps, the original Patent No. 182,973 having been granted to Carl Votti, as inventor, October 3, 1876.

The specification of the reissue says:

My invention relates to lamps; and it consists in a transparent shade-holder, or holder of a material allowing the passage of light, and shade or globe so arranged that an ordinary lamp-burner can be used without a chimney, as will be hereinafter more fully set forth.

In the annexed drawing, Figure 1 is a vertical section of my invention. Fig. 2 is a plan view of the shade-holder.

A represents an ordinary lamp-burner, provided with a circumferential flauge, a, for the support of the cone b, and which, ordinarily, also serves to support the chimney or cylinder. This flange is provided with suitable perforations, through which air is admitted both inside and outside of the cone.

Instead of using the flange a for the support of the ordinary chimney, I place on the same my shade-holder B, which is made of glass or other suitable transparent material, or material that will allow of the passage of light, and which is provided with a tubular extension or socket, c, that fits over the cone b, leaving an air-spaceb etween its inner surface and the outer surface of said cone. From said socket extends a broad dishshaped flange, d, which is provided with a rim, e, and which serves to support and retain the shade C. The flange d is perfectly closed, so that no air will pass to the flame except what is admitted through the perforations in the burner-flange a, and by these means I am enabled to produce a bright flame without the use of an ordinary chimney or cylinder. The advantages of this arrangement will be apparent, since it allows of keeping the burner clean, and of trimming the wick without difficulty, and the annoyance of broken chimneys is avoided.

It will be seen that with the shade-holder and shade arranged, as shown and described, the ordinary burner will perform the required functions without the use of a chimney.

I am well aware that transparent shade-holders are of themselves not new; hence I do not claim such, broadly, as being my invention.

The claims of the reissue are as follows:

1. In a lamp having a burner, the combination of a shade-holder made of material

that will admit of the passage of light, and a shade or globe, arranged and constructed substantially as described, whereby the burner performs the required functions without the use of a chimney, as set forth.

2. The shade-holder B, constructed of material that will admit of the passage of light, and provided with a downwardly-extending socket, c, and dish-shaped flange d, with rim e, in combination with a globe or shade C, and burner A of a lamp, asand for the purposes herein set forth.

3. The combination, in a lamp, of the burner A, having perforated flange a and cone d, the shade-holder B, with central socket c, and a shade or globe, C, substantially as and for the purposes herein set forth.

One of the defenses set up in the answer is that in the specification of the reissue there is not given, as required by the statute, a description of the invention, and of the process of making, constructing, and using it in such full, clear, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which it appertains to make, construct, and use the same; nor is there explained in or by said specification the principle of the alleged invention and the best mode in which said Votti has contemplated applying that principle so as to distinguish it from other inventions, and that therefore the patent is void.

In the specification nothing is said as to the shape or size of the parts, or proportion of the parts, of the shade C. Nothing is said about it except to call it a "globe" and to designate it as "C" by a letter of reference to the drawings. Nothing is said as to the diameter of the contraction at the narrowest part of it, near its top, as compared with the diameter of the socket c of the shade-holder, and nothing as to its height or as to the degree of flare of the shade-holder. These things are shown by the evidence to be material in constructing an arrangement of the kind which will give as good a light as with the use of a chimney. The object of the arrangement is stated in the specification to be to use an ordinary burner without a chimney and to dispense with the ordinary chimney. This can only mean that as good a light is to be produced without as with a chimney. The meaning of the words "a bright flame,” in their context, is as bright a flame as the chimney will produce. The meaning of the expression that "the ordinary burner will perform the required functions without the use of a chimney" is that the ordinary burner will give as much light without the use of a chimney. This is to be done by having "the shade-holder and shade arranged as shown and described," yet the features of construction and shape and size and proportions of the shade are not set forth. So, too, in claim 1, "a shade or globe, arranged and constructed substantially as described," is spoken of, yet nothing is described as to the construction of the shade. It is true that by looking at C in the drawings a shade of a certain form is shown. But the drawings are not said to be on a scale. Looking at the drawings and making a shade from them gives but one form of shade at most, and there is no statement of the principle which is to govern the construction of the shade as to size and proportions. It is shown that a shade made as nearly as can be ascertained of the form and proportions shown in the drawings will cause the burner to give light to

some degree, but by no means to the same degree as the ordinary chimney will with the same burner.

It is not the shade of the drawings that has been made and sold by the plaintiff under the patent, nor have the defendants made or sold the shade of the drawings. To reach the shades of either the plaintiff or the defendants required experiment, adaptation, and invention beyond anything shown in the drawings.

Construing the patent as covering a shade of the form and dimensions and size and height and proportions shown in the drawings, no such shade has been made or sold by the defendants, and so there has been no infringement. This is the most favorable view which can be taken of the patent.

The bill is dismissed, with costs.

[United States Circuit Court-District of Rhode Island. ¡

WHITE ET AL. v. HEATH.

22 O. G., 500.

1. LAMPS-INFRINGEMENT BY IMPROVER.

A patent for the application of the power of carbonic-acid gas to extinguishing flames in an ordinary lamp containing inflammable oil by means of a closed receptacle holding such gas is infringed by one who uses the main elements of the combination, but has made certain changes in the gas-holding receptacle-viz, alterations in form and location-whereby the receptacle is less liable to get broken, and at the same time the gas comes into more immediate contact with the flames in case of an explosion.

2. SAME-SAMe-Changes aND IMPROVEMents will not Relieve Infringer. One who uses the combination secured by the patent is none the less an infringer because he has made changes is details of construction which might be patentable as improvements.

3 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION-EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION-VALIDITY OF PATENTUSE.

An injunction is seldom refused where exclusive possession is shown for some time, though not for a long period, where large and numerous sales have taken place without dispute, and where the validity of the patent is not questioned by the defendant.

4. SAME-PROSPECTIVE INFRINGEMENT.

Injunction granted before any sales had actually been made by the defendant where it appeared probable from the circumstances that the defendant is about to engage in the business.

5. SAME-NON-USER DURING SUIT.

The mere assertion of the defendant in the affidavit attached to his answer that he has no intention of making and selling any of the infringed articles during the pendency of the suit is not a good reason for withholding an injunction.

Mr. Wilmarth H. Thurston for the complainants.

Mr. Warren R. Perce for the defendant.

COLT, D. J.:

This is an application for a preliminary injunction. The complainants, having acquired title by assignment to a certain patent issued to

Charles S. Westland for an improvement in lamps, charge the defendant with an infringement. This patent (No. 206,061) was issued July 16, 1878, and the claim is as follows:

The combination, with a lamp for burning explosive or inflammable oils or fluids, of a closed receptacle containing carbonic-acid gas under pressure, so located with relation to the burner that in case of an explosion the compressed gas will be liberated, substantially as and for the purposes set forth.

The object of this invention was to avoid the danger from fire in the event of an explosion of a lamp in which kerosene or this inflammable fluid might be used, by means of a closed receptacle or chamber of glass or other fragile material charged with carbonic-acid gas fitting about or into the oil-reservoir. Immediately upon the issuing of the patent Westland sought capital to establish the business of manufacturing the lamp. Among those whom he met was the defendant Heath, and on September 16, 1878, he sold to him one-third interest in the patent. On July 3, 1879, the complainants, White and Fairbrother, bought the remaining two-thirds, and on January 28, 1881, they also purchased the other one-third of Heath and another person to whom he had transferred a part. We thus find that the defendant was interested in this patent up to January 28, 1881. On March 1, 1881, the defendant took out Letters Patent No. 238,234, for an improvement in safety-lamps, and he claims that the lamps complained of are made under this patent. The position taken by the plaintiff is, first, that the lamps in question are not made under the defendant's patent, because the main features of that patent, which consisted of certain details in the construction of safety. lamps, are omitted; second, that even if made under that patent, they would be an infringement of the Westland patent.

The inquiry whether the lamps made by the defendant conform to his patent we deem, under the circumstances, immaterial. The only defense offered by Heath is his patent, and if that does not protect him he is guilty, under the evidence, of the charge of infringement. An examination of the defendant's patent shows that it embraces the main elements of the Westland patent. It consists of a combination, with a lamp for burning explosive oils, of a closed receptacle containing carbonic acid gas, so located that in case of an explosion the compressed gas will be liberated. What is claimed in the specification is an improvement in certain details of construction, whereby the passage of the gas to the inside of the reservoir and to the flame is insured. These details relate mainly to the construction of the gas-receptacle, it having "grooves or flutes" running down into the oil reservoir, the defendant claiming that by his invention the gas-chamber is less liable to get broken, and at the same time the gas comes into more immediate contact with the flame in case of an explosion. But admitting that the defendant has worked out an improvement in details in the gas-receptaele, still he had no right to use all the main elements of the Westland patent. Westland's patent was the application of the power of carbonic-acid gas in extinguishing flames to an ordinary lamp containing