combination of the patent operates, we think, to produce a new result or an old result in a manner which is a vast improvement over anything in the prior art. The Grant tire has the capacity, which not other possesses, of readjusting itself, after yielding to severe lateral strain, without tearing, or abrasion of the rubber or injury to any of the parts.

The Circuit Court of Appeals found that the new mode of operation which produces this result is not mentioned in the specification or inherent in the combination but depends for its discovery upon the ingenuity of experts. Recognizing the rule that one who has invented a structure which cannot be used without including the function which produces the new result, is entitled to all the uses of his invention whether known to him or not, the court says:

"If this tipping capacity had been pointed out and even this indefinite direction given by the patentee as to the mode of securing that operation, the patent might possibly be saved."

It now appears that the feature which secures patentability is inherent in the patent, and the specification is so clear and explicit that no intelligent mechanic can follow Grant's directions without securing the tipping action which inheres in no other tire. This feature is

neither an accident nor "an obscure property"; it exists in every wheel on which is mounted a tire which follows the teaching of the patent. In view of this new aspect of the case we have no reason to doubt that on the present record the Court of Appeals of the Sixth Circuit would reach a result favorable to the patent.

The complainants' expert says:

"It is absolutely impossible to adjust the tension of the wires, so that this yielding capacity will not be exhibited in the tire."

We are convinced, in view of the new testimony, that he is correct. The specification is addressed to those skilled in the art; it is enough that they understand it. Had the patentee attempted to point out the minute details of the elements making up his combinationsuch as the quality and degree of elasticity of the rubber, the material, size, strength and tensility of the wires and the exact amount of force needed to draw the wires together, he would have found himself surrounded by difficulties even more serious than those which now confront him. He chose to leave these details to the intelligent operator with the assurance that such a one would possess sufficient knowledge to draw the wires tight enough to hold the rubber firmly in the channel, but not tight enough to break them. Nothing more was required, for a tire so secured would necessarily have the capacity of reseating itself when subjected to unusual lateral strain and would infringe the claims. The entire prior art was before the skilled workman to the same extent as if written in the Grant patent, and, with this knowledge, it is hardly possible that he could set the tire so that it would fail to perform the functions referred to, unless he deliberately purposed to make a failure. On the one hand, he would know that he must not draw the wires tight enough to break them, and, on the other, that he must draw them sufficiently to hold the tire

240

151 FEDERAL REPORTER.

snugly in the channel. Ordinary common sense would teach him to do this, and if he neglected to exercise it he would find that in one case the wires would break and in the other that the tire would rock, and, if subjected to any unusual jolt, would roll out of the channel. That the capacity for readjusting itself when subjected to lateral strain is inherent in the Grant tire seems perfectly plain, and was demonstrated at the argument even by hand pressure applied to the tire at a point where the rubber had been cut down so as to expose the wires. Indeed, the defendant's expert says:

"There is no doubt that when lateral pressure is applied to one side of the exposed portion of the tire, there is a tendency to roll the tire out of the channel. The element which materially resists this tendency is that retaining-wire on the side to which the pressure is applied. If this wire is sufficient to resist the strain, the tire cannot roll out of the channel; and the function of the other retaining-wire, at the opposite side of the tire, is simply to hold that part of the tire in its place, in order that it may be prepared, in its turn, to receive lateral thrust from the opposite side."

Without discussing the subject further we are satisfied that the description of the patent is sufficiently full, clear, concise and exact to enable a person skilled in the art to make the Grant tire. We are also convinced that the new and useful tipping and reseating feature is inherent in the structure and that it was not necessary to point it out specifically, for the reason that no intelligent mechanic in the rubber tire art could follow the teachings of the patent without producing a tire possessing this function.

The patent to Latta, No. 341,811, granted May 11, 1886, is now advanced as the nearest approach to anticipation found in the old art. It is a somewhat significant fact that the Latta patent is not mentioned in the opinion of the court in either the Goodyear or Columbia case, but, irrespective of any presumption which may be drawn from its belated prominence, we are of the opinion that its disclosures are in no way fatal to the claims in controversy. Our reasons may be epitomized as follows:

First. The patent is for an improvement in velocipedes, or bicycles, where the wheels, guided by the rider, follow each other in a narrow track. The danger from lateral strain in such a vehicle is comparatively remote.

Second. The description says that "It is obvious that the tire may be secured in its seat by cement, in the usual manner, if desired." If this were done the distinguishing feature of the Grant tire would, in any view, be eliminated.

Third. The wires are molded into the tire, thus preventing all independent action between the wires and the rubber. If subjected to lateral strain the rubber will not turn on the wires, and if subjected to longitudinal strain it will not "creep" along them. The Latta tire in this particular is little more than a rubber tire reinforced and strengthened by wires.

Fourth. The wires are wavy or serpentine in form, "which prevents them from drawing in the tire if broken therein." Every precaution seems to have been taken to prevent any independent move

ment of the wires. It is also obvious that with the use of these sinuous, wavy wires there must be many points where the wires are not within the inner or unexposed portion of the tire, namely, below the line between the two angles of the tire, as pointed out by Grant. When subjected to lateral strain at these points it would seem that the tire can no longer exert the necessary leverage to lift the side of the tire from the channel. In other words, the strain will operate to crowd the tire against the opposite flange with no tipping action to relieve the pressure.

Fifth.-Latta's tire is circular in cross-section, there being no angles as shown at c of the Grant drawings. The widest part of the Latta tire is above the outer peripheries of the flanges and receives. no protection therefrom.

Sixth. The bottom of Latta's tire is concaved to fit a corresponding convexity in the bottom of the channel, and it is argued with some plausibility that such construction would, in case of lateral strain, severe enough to cause either side to rise, result in jamming the rubber so that it could not readily reseat itself.

Other reasons might be given, but we think enough has been said. to show that in our judgment Latta had no conception of the improvements found in the Grant structure.

Upon the question of infringement we deem it unnecessary to add anything to the opinion of the Circuit Court. The complainants hold the legal and equitable title to the patent, no outstanding interest in any other party is suggested, and we fail to see how such an interest can exist.

The decree is affirmed.

151 F.-16

CAMERON SEPTIC TANK CO. v. VILLAGE OF SARATOGA SPRINGS et al.

(Circuit Court, N. D. New York. March 12, 1907.)

1. PATENTS-PROCESS-PATENTABILITY.

It is when the term "process" is used to represent the means or method of producing a result that it is patentable, and it will include all methods or means, not natures, which are not effected by mechanism or mechanical combinations.

[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 38, Patents, § 6.]

2. SAME.

A principle is not patentable, and while there may be a valid patent for means or methods of putting principles into operation so as to produce useful results, there cannot be for nature's means and methods.

[Ed. Note. For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 38, Patents, § 5.] 3. SAME-INVENTION-PROCESS AND APPARATUS FOR TREATING SEWAGE.

The Cameron, Commin, and Martin patent, No. 634,423, for a process of and apparatus for treating sewage, is void for lack of invention, in view of the prior art. The process claims for liquefying sewage by anaërobic action are for an aggregation of three separate and successive processes, two of which were old, and the other a process of nature not patentable, and which had, moreover, been previously discovered and utilized by others. The apparatus claims, which cover a settling tank, a septic tank, and an aërator, disclose nothing which was not known and used in the prior art, except, perhaps, an improvement in the outlet of the septic tank, which involved no invention. Also held not infringed, even if valid, as limited by the prior art.

In Equity. Suit to restrain alleged infringement by defendants of certain claims of United States letters patent No. 634,423, granted to Donald Cameron and others October 3, 1899, for "Process of and apparatus for treating sewage," and for an accounting.

Gifford & Bull (Livingston Gifford, of counsel), for complainant. John J. Healey, Jr. (Ephraim Banning, Charles L. Sturtevant, and Edgar Brackett, of counsel), for defendants.

RAY, District Judge. The patent in suit, applied for March 15, 1897, and issued October 3, 1899, to Donald Cameron, Frederick J. Commin, and Arthur J. Martin, of Exeter, England, is for a process. and apparatus for treating sewage. It declares that the patentees "have invented certain new and useful improvements in processes of and apparatus for liquefying and purifying sewage," for which they have received letters patent in England, No. 21,142, dated November 8, 1895, and in other foreign countries, giving dates and numbers. It then declares that:

"The following is a full, clear, and exact description of the invention which will enable others skilled in the art to which it appertains to make and use the same."

It also declares that the object of the invention is to provide an artificial method and apparatus for the liquefaction and purification of sewage on a practical and efficient scale in a natural and simple manner, avoiding the formation of sludge. It also declares that the invention consists (1) in certain methods of developing, in a flowing current of sewage, bacteria capable of dissolving the mass of solid organic matter

contained in the sewage; (2) of subsequently utilizing the so-developed bacteria in liquefying the mass of organic matter contained in the flowing current of sewage; and (3) of further purifying the effluent liquid. The patent then declares that the invention also consists in the apparatus for carrying out the process. It further declares that: "The process of purification comprises the subjection of the sewage to the dissolving action of anaërobic bacteria and subsequently to exposure to air and light."

The patent then describes the process, as follows:

"In carrying out the process the first step is to develop in a flowing current of sewage micro-organisms or bacteria of a character and quantity capable of practically liquefying the mass of solid organic matter contained in the flowing current of sewage. This is effected by forming a pool in the flowing current and secluding said pool from light, air, and agitation, while permitting a nondisturbing inflow of the sewage into the pool and an outflow therefrom. In this condition of the pool, in the absence of light, air, and 'agitation, the micro-organisms increase at a fabulous rate, being fed by the incoming solid matter of the sewage until a mass of bacteria is developed sufficient in character and quantity to liquefy substantially all the solid organic matter contain-. ed in the sewage passing through the pool. During this operation there is formed on the surface of the sewage in the pool a brown scum. This crust of solid substances floating and completely bridging over the water is from two to three inches thick, and although there is a continued inflow of raw sewage, and a continued outflow of the liquid effluent, this scum remains at about the same thickness, and does not increase. This scum attains its thickness of from two to three inches in about a week after the tank is put into use, and, although no part of it is removed, it continues at the same thickness. After the formation of this practical solid-dissolving mass of bacteria, the nondisturbing inflow and outflow are continued until practically all the solid organic matter is dissolved, and the outflow is in the form of a liquid without solid particles of sewage. The operation goes on, and the flowing current of sewage is continually liquefied. The liquefied sewage as it leaves the septic pool has a slight odor, so slight, however, that it cannot be noticed at a distance of a yard or two, and to relieve it of this slight odor it is subjected to an aërating operation."

The patent then states that in some systems now employed, where purification is sought, the crude sewage is first treated chemically, so that the solids are to a great extent precipitated, and that it is only 'the liquid which is treated by filtration or otherwise; that in such processes the solid matter rapidly accumulates in the form of an offensive sludge which is difficult to dispose of. The patent then declares that, by the process described therein, such treatment may be entirely dispensed with, and the expense of dealing with the precipitated matter obviated. The patent also states that, in the prior systems, it has been considered of advantage that there should be contact of the sewage matter with the air; but that in the invention of the patent, and in treating sewage under its process, it is of the utmost importance that means be provided for preventing contact with the air, and that the chamber in which the bacteriological action takes place should be dark in order to assist the bacteria contained in the sewage to rapidly multiply, it being a well-known fact that bacteria multiply rapidly in dark places. The patent says that the exclusion of light and air can be secured by a closed cover to the tank or vessel containing the sewage, which cover may be removed after several days, as, after such