Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

tion filed October 10, 1902, for " improvements in binding-posts," and the specification states, as the object of the invention

the production of a simple and efficient binding-post which is insulated from its support, and is especially adapted for use in connection with electric meters.

It contains six claims as allowed, and claims 1 and 6 are alleged to be infringed, reading as follows:

1. In combination, a casing provided with an opening, an insulating-bushing fitted to the opening, the interior of said bushing being threaded, a metal bindingpost in the interior of said casing threaded into said bushing, a washer of insulating material surrounding the inner end of said bushing, and a nut threaded on said binding-post for securing said washer and said bushing to said casing.

6. In combination, a meter-casing having an aperture formed in it, an insulating-bushing passing through said opening and provided with a flange engaging the outer surface of the casing at the edge of said aperture, a binding-post inside the meter-casing, means located within the casing for securing the binding-post and bushing to each other and to the casing, a conductor passing through the bushing, and means located within the casing for securing the conductor to the binding-post.

On May 9, 1905, the appellant (as assignee) filed in the Patent Office its disclaimer as follows:

To that part of the claim in said specification which is in the following words, to wit:

"5. The combination, of a casing, a binding-post having a longitudinal bore, a bushing mounted in an opening in said casing and receiving said binding-post. and a clamping device located within the casing for securing to the binding-post a conductor passing into the bore of said post from without the casing." The drawing of the patent and descriptive matter contained in the specification are as follows:

شمارا

Fig 2 Fig.3 Fig.4.

Fig.3.

10

Each binding-post consists of a substantially cylindrical body, having one end. 4, reduced in diameter and threaded. An axial opening or recess, 5, is formed in this end of the binding-post. Threaded transverse openings, 6, are formed in the body portion of the binding-post leading into the recess, 5, into which setscrews may be inserted in order to secure an external conductor in the binding.

post. A transverse opening, 7, is formed in the unthreaded end of the binding-post, 2, which receives the conductor leading to the current-coils of the meter mechanism. At right angles to this opening, 7, a threaded opening, 8, is formed, into which a set-screw holding the meter-terminal in position is threaded.

The major portions of the binding-post are located on the interior of the meter-casing. The threaded end may, however, project through the tapered opening, 9, in the wall of the casing. A tapered tubular insulating-plug, 10, into which the binding-post is secured, is fitted into this opening, 9, and insulates the binding-post proper from the casing. The insulating-bushing, 10, may be circular in cross-section, or may be given any other desired configuration, and is interiorly threaded to receive the threaded end of the binding-post. The taper of the opening and the bushing is such as to prevent more than a partial entrance of the bushing. A washer, 11, also made out of insulating material, surrounds the inner end of the insulating-bushing, 10. A nut, 12, which may be made of metal, is threaded on the binding-post and abuts against the end of the washer, 11, which extends into the casing farther than does the bushing, 10.

* *

By the construction shown the binding-post is secured in a position in which there is almost no opportunity for dust to pass from the outside of the casing into the interior, and in which the connections between the meter mechanism and the circuits cannot be readily altered.

Other facts deemed material are stated in the opinion.

Mr. P. C. Dyrenforth, Mr. Richard N. Dyer, and Mr. John Robert Taylor for the appellant.

Mr. Robert H. Parkinson for the appellee.

Before GROSSCUP, BAKER, and SEAMAN, Circuit Judges.

SEAMAN, Cir. J. (after stating the facts as above:)

The patent in suit, No. 789,433, is for an improvement in so-called "binding-posts" or circuit-terminals, particularly adapted for use in electric meters. The post consists of several parts which are assembled for use in the meter, fitted into an opening in the meter-casing, and screwed together for receiving and connecting wires in an electric circuit, and novelty is neither disclosed nor claimed in means or function, unless a new and patentable combination appears of the several elements, each well known in the art, constituting the binding-post. Its function as described, for a circuit-terminal, was fundamental in the structure of electric meters and analogous provisions for electrical connection, and exemplifications in the art are needless. In the light of the prior art, supplemented by the appellant's disclaimer, (filed October 20, 1906,) we believe both claims in suit to be without patentable novelty in the combination set forth.

The history of the application for this patent-shown by the "File Wrapper and Contents" in evidence-is instructive. It was filed October 10, 1902, with three original claims, which were rejected December 9, 1902, on reference to prior patents, Nos. 498,407, 371,161 and 668,300. Amendments were made and two more claims inserted

December 8, 1903, and all claims rejected February 9, 1904, on reference to prior patents, Nos. 498,407 and 503,427. Claim 6 was then added, and on reconsideration all claims were allowed and patent issued. Neither of the patents hereinafter mentioned is included in these references, and counsel for the applicant contended for this distinction in means and purpose over the prior art as cited:

The construction shown by applicant is intended for use in electric meters, the object of the invention being to provide a suitable binding-post arranged so that a conductor passing through an aperture formed in the meter-casing may be secured to the binding-post by means accessible only from the interior of the casing, the object being, of course, to prevent tampering with the meter connections by unauthorized persons. In order to obtain the results desired the applicant designed the construction shown in the drawings. This construction is simple and reliable, and has been used on many thousand meters.

It may justly be inferred, therefore, that the ultimate allowance was predicated on the view thus stated and the further contention, that "clear and distinct patentable differences over the prior art" arise in the patentee's device.

Whether means and function so referred to are included in the above-mentioned disclaimer, as appellee contends, needs no determination in our view of the effect of other prior devices of the art, in evidence, namely, Scheeffer's patent, No. 622,639, for "electric meter," April 4, 1899, and Badeau's patent, No. 651,063, for "insulated contact or terminal for electric circuits," June 5, 1900. The Scheffer patent (owned by the appellee) shows an "insulated leading-in plug" (so called) "situated in the meter-casing to receive the line conductors," which is substantially identical with the King binding-post, in structure, location, and functions, differing only in the means of attachment for (a) the bushing to the casing-aperture and (b) the hollow post to the bushing-each by "a tight fit," instead of the nut-andscrew attachment of the King patent-while screws are alike inserted within the casing to hold bushing and post together. This device, as described in the patent, makes "a closure for the meter that is practically hermetic," and all means for securing the conductor to the post are located within the casing-alike with the King device inaccessible from without. In the Badeau patent a binding-post is exhibited, "particularly designed for service in connection with switchboards "-an analogous use with its post in the combination, not only substantially identical with King's post, but having like screw attachments for insulating bushing, nut, insulating-washer, and hollow post. Thus the combination of King is plainly anticipated by Badeau for like purpose, and we believe no invention was involved in the King adaptation, even if it be assumed that his combination were otherwise patentable in the light of Scheeffer's disclosures.

We are of opinion, therefore, that the appellant's bill was rightly dismissed for want of equity, and the decree appealed from is affirmed.

[U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals-Seventh Circuit.]

GENERAL ELECTRIC Co. v. WINONA INTERURBAN RY. Co. et al.

Decided October 4, 1910.

164 O. G., 509.

PATENTABILITY-ELECTRIC-CURRENT TRANSFORMER.

The Kurda patent, No. 600,228, for a polyphase-current transformer, Held to disclose patentable invention, since it embodies means for economic improvement over polyphase transformers of the prior art which is of undoubted utility, although not a great advance in the art.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Indiana,

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

The General Electric Company appeals from a decree dismissing for want of equity its bill charging the appellees with infringement of Letters Patent No. 600,228, owned by the appellant-complainant. The patent was issued March 8, 1898, to Schuckert & Co., as assignee of the alleged inventor, Carl Kurda, for a "polyphase-current transformer," and the specifications state:

Up to the present transformers for polyphase currents with common magnetic circuits have been built in which several electromagnets are arranged side by side between the base-plate and an iron cover. It is obvious that this arrangement can only be used with transformers of the core type. It is, however, well known that up to a certain size for single-phase currents transformers of the ironclad type are to be preferred. For polyphase currents the latter type has not yet been used.

The object of the present invention is to produce ironclad transformers for polyphase systems.

Six drawings accompany the specifications, with Figure 1 mentioned as "a plan of a transformer of the new type destined for twophase currents," Fig. 3 as showing "a similar apparatus for three phases," and Fig. 6 as illustrating "the magnetic conditions of the different circuits for a special case." Figs. 1 and 3 are as follows:

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][graphic][subsumed]

The claims of the patent, both alleged to be infringed, are:

1. A transformer for polyphase alternating currents consisting of two or more sets of inducing-coils of different phase placed one upon another in com

bination with laminated sheet-inductive material surrounding said sets of inducing-coils and separating them from each other, substantially as described.

2. A transformer for three-phase alternating currents consisting of three sets of inducing-coils of different phase placed one upon another, in combination with laminated sheet-iron surrounding said inducing-coils and separating them the one from the other, the electrical connection for the inner set being made in an opposite sense to that of the outer sets, substantially as described.

The fact appears and is undisputed that the transformer made by the appellee Allis-Chalmers Company and used by the other appellee is within both of these claims, and their validity, in view of the prior art, is the only issue upon this appeal. While the Allis-Chalmers Company filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the court and issue was taken thereupon, no testimony was offered, so that the case proceeded to final hearing with such issue undetermined, leaving the Winona Interurban Railway Company nominally the sole defendant. But the Allis-Chalmers Company entered an admission of record that it was the manufacturer of the apparatus" charged to be an infringement" and

controls and directs the defense of this suit and is paying the expenses thereof. Other material facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Edward Rector and Mr. L. F. H. Betts for the appellant. Mr. Thomas F. Sheridan and Mr. Clifton V. Edwards for the appellees.

Before BAKER, SEAMAN, and KOHLSAAT, Circuit Judges.

SEAMAN, Cir. J., (after stating the facts as above:)

The Kurda patent, No. 600,228, for a "polyphase-current transformer," was granted March 8, 1898, and purchased by the appellant, General Electric Company, January 4, 1902; and these further facts are uncontroverted: utility of the device as a unitary transformer of more than one alternating current in an electric system; extensive manufacture by the appellant of the patent transformers, with a profitable branch of business in their use by the trade; and invasion of the prima facie right of monopoly under the patent, by the defendants as charged in its bill. The sole defense tendered by the testimony, as frankly stated in the argument on behalf of the appellee, "is that the patent in suit is invalid in view of the prior art "—in substance for want of patentable invention-and the technical difficulties involved in the special subject-matter of " polyphase currents" tend to increase the usual difficulty arising under that issue. While the patent specifications refer to prior transformers for polyphase currents as of another type, using a group of single-phase transformers of the "core type " placed side by side, and that none were of the "ironclad type" adopted for the patent device, the evidence shows

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »