Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

The accompanying drawings, taken from Patent No. 236,101, are identical with the drawings of No. 164,050, and not essentially different from those of Nos. 133,898, 194,539, 208,936, and 258,142, No. 137,495 being without drawings.

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

In the specification of No. 164,050, issued upon the first of the appliations, the machine and its method of operation are thus described :

In the accompanying drawings, A represents a hopper, into which the material to be bolted is delivered from an elevator or by any other means. The material is fed by the roller B to the bolt b, the amount of feed being regulated by the slide c. The

bolt is arranged in a chamber, through which a current of air is made to pass by means of a fan, D, the air entering through suitable openings C in the side of the bolt-chest, the construction and arrangement of parts being such that the air is compelled to pass upward through the bolt-cloth. The bolt or shaker is suspended from the frame-work by means of pivoted links r r, and has a reciprocating motion imparted to it by the eccentric R' on shaft R and the inclosing box I. As the material is agitated by the motion of the bolt, the flour falls through, while the smaller particles of bran are taken up by the current of air and carried off.

As there is a continual current of air in an upward direction through the bolt, it will cause the very fine particles of flour and middlings to adhere to the thread of which the cloth is composed, and close up the meshes to such an extent as to interfere materially with the operation of the device.

In order to obviate this objection and maintain a free passage of the air and middlings, I employ brushes to traverse the underside of the cloth and keep it clean. HH are the brushes attached to and carried by endless belts h, the brushes being supported upon ways k k during their contact with the bolt.

By preference, I make the frame-work and ways which support the brushes adjustable by means of set-screws b', (see Fig. 2,) so that I can keep the brushes always in contact with the bolt.

It is evident that the brushes would act upon the bolt equally well if they had a reciprocating motion, instead of being driven continuously in one direction by the endless belts or chains, although I regard the method shown for operating them as being the cheapest and most convenient, and also better adapted for doing the work. I am aware that a combination of brushes and air-currents has been used in connection with flour-bolts for many years; but in such machines the air-current passed through the bolting-surface with the flour; hence it could not, by any possibility, be made to perform the same functions as it does in my machine, one of which is to float a portion of the bran and refuse upon or above the bolting-surface, and thus cause such particles to pass off at the tail of the bolt, instead of going through the cloth with the flour or clean middlings.

A minute comparison of the specifications and drawings of the sev eral patents with reference to the claims of each is not necessary. It would serve only to demonstrate more clearly the facts so explicitly affirmed in the bill that the Smith purifier is "one compact machine," of which the different parts described in the several Letters Patent are incapable of separate use, and that the machine itself is incomplete and incapable of use without the patented parts. We therefore make only a brief additional statement.

In No. 154,770 the discharging end of the shaker or bolting-surface, which by preference is divided by two or more longitudinal ribs is, by means of wedge-shaped blocks, made of less width than the receiving portion and the area for the passage of air-currents correspondingly reduced. A division of the chamber above the shaker into sections by means of partitions is also illustrated and declared to be preferred.

In No. 158,992 the cloth on the two or more longitudinal sections into which the shaker is divided is of different degrees of fineness, and in connection therewith is to be used a preparatory or grading-bolt, which is illustrated in the old form of a reel, though, of course, it may be a mere duplication of the horizontal shaker described. The chamber is divided by vertical partitions arranged immediately above the ribs

which divide the shaker, and the apertures from the several apartments of the chamber are provided with dampers for regulating the air-currents. An adjustable swing-board, hinged upon the gather-boards below the shaker, is employed

to regulate the proportion of flour or middlings which shall be delivered to each conveyer.

In No. 187,923, the first of the unexpired patents, the shaker is divided into sections by longitudinal ribs; but the chamber above is divided, by transverse instead of longitudinal partitions, into three sections, each provided with a regulating-damper, and the cloth of the shaker is of three grades, arranged so that the middlings will pass first over the finest and last over the coarsest grade.

In No. 194,539 there is shown a machine made by placing in juxtaposition two or more of the machines already described, each having its own fan, chamber, cloth-conveyer, and other parts and acting independently of the other. In order to admit the air freely to the central portion of the shaker, openings in the gather-boards are provided.

In No. 208,936 special mention is made and the utility explained of the shelves n in the air chamber, which, according to the specifications and claim, serve the purpose of—

collecting light material carried off from the bolter by the air currents.

The same shelves are shown in the drawing Fig. 3 of Nos. 133,898, 164,050, and 187,923, but are not mentioned in any of the claims thereof. No. 236,101 contains the same drawings as No. 164,050, and differs from the earlier and expired patents only in the wording of its claims. The same is true of No. 258,142, the last of the series, of which the patentee, after acknowledging that "some of the important combinations included in this machine" are covered by the patents already taken out "in other divisions," declares the object to be "to cover all patentable points not covered by any such prior patents."

Special significance has been attributed to some of the averments of the bill. It is alleged, for example,

that the said Geo. T. Smith's middlings-purifier is one compact machine, operating together as a whole, parts of which are covered by the Letters Patent

mentioned, but no part thereof

covered by any other patent than those specified herein; that Geo. T. Smith was the original inventor of said machine;

that on July 12, 1871, he filed his application for a patent; about October 23, 1871, filed a caveat for

further improvements, and on May 20, 1872, applied for letters thereon

which applications and caveat practically covered all the devices and patents mentioned; but that, owing to alleged interferences and litigation thereon, Smith subsequently

made special applications for parts of his said invention not included in the alleged interference

but

that the primitive idea of said Geo. T. Smith was the invention of a machine made up by the devices

described; that all the patents—

relate to the same subject matter, to wit: the purifying of middlings by the same general mode, to wit: The ground grain is fed forward through a shaking-screen having progressively coarser meshes, while a current of air draws backward through the screen from below and lifts the coarse or light particles of bran or husk, while permitting the heavier or finer particles of nutritious flour to pass through the screen;

that the machine has no utility or practical value without the use of the patented devices mentioned or their equivalents; that the devices— are not capable of separate use for the purposes designed; that the purifier is not capable of use without them,

and that

the devices in such combination constitute the essential features of said machine and are necessary to a complete running machine;

that after the issue of No. 133,898, which was for one only of the mechanical devices set forth in the applications of July 12, 1871, and May 20, 1872, the issue of the other patents was suspended to await the result of the interference declared between Smith,

claiming under the said applications so filed by him, and Benjamin Barter, who claimed under Letters Patent No. 125,518, issued on the 9th day of April, 1872, for an improvement in the method of dressing flour,

a copy of which, with accompanying specifications, is made a part of the bill; that the interference was declared in June, 1872, for the purpose of ascertaining whether Barter, claiming under Letters Patent No. 125,518, or Smith, claiming under his applications of July 12, 1871, and May 20, 1872, and caveat of October 23, 1871,

was the original inventor and discoverer of the inventions described in said patent (No. 133,898) and said applications for patents,

and that the interference was decided November 14, 1874, in favor of Smith.

In the case of Miller v. Eagle Mftg. Co., supra, after a review of authorities, the Supreme Court declared the conclusion that

no patent can issue for an invention actually covered by a former patent, especially to the same patentee, although the terms of the claims may differ; that the second patent, although containing a broader claim, more general in its character, than the specific claims contained in the prior patent, is also void; but that where the second patent covers matter described in the prior patent, essentially distinct and separable from the invention covered thereby, and claims made thereunder, its validity may be sustained. See, also, Fassett v. Ewart Mftg Co., (C. D., 1894, 614; 69 O. G., 953; 10 C. C. A., 441.)

Whether or not under these rules any of the first five of the patents here sued on are invalid, we need not consider. It is clear that singly

or all together they cover Smith's invention, and the machine in which it was embodied, so completely as to leave no room for further distinct and separable claims.

The allegation of the bill that after the granting of No. 133,898— the issue of other patents was suspended to await the result of the interferencecan in no sense be true in respect to Nos. 187,923, 208,936, and 236,101, which were not applied for until after November 14, 1874, when the interference was determined. No. 194,539, too, was not applied for until September 8, 1874, and the interference affords no reason why that patent was not issued until August 28, 1877, nor why No. 258,142 was not issued until May 16, 1882. Besides, the interference was declared for the purpose of determining the right of Smith, as against Barter, to the inventions covered by Letters Patent No. 133,898, the applications of July 12, 1871, and May 20, 1872, and the caveat of October 23, 1871. The patents granted upon those applications were Nos. 158,992 and 164,050. It was, therefore, only the claims of the three patentsNos. 133,898, 158,992, and 164,050-which were involved in the interference, and there was no reason for suspending action upon other applications, unless they were for the same inventions. If they were for the same inventions, they ought not to have been granted, and, having been granted, are invalid, because covered by the earlier patents.

That the earlier

applications and caveat practically covered all the devices and patents mentionedis alleged in the bill. The allegation is manifestly true, and consequently the patentee was without justification for making

special application for parts of his said invention not included in the alleged interference.

There were no such parts.

It may be observed, too, that the features of the later patents are all described and illustrated in the patent of Barter, a copy of which is made an exhibit in the bill. If, therefore, they were not included in the interference and so became the established property of Smith under the three patents mentioned, then they belong to Barter, if included in his claims, and if not to him, then to the public, because of his failure to claim them.

It is doubtless true, as contended, aside from any right to an injunction, that there may be ground for jurisdiction in equity in the nature and circumstances of the account and in the necessity for discovery; but in respect to the expired patents, which are here assumed to be valid, it is not shown that the remedy at law would be inadequate. The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »