"The device can be arranged to require a greater or less force to rupture the soldered joint by placing the post G at a greater or less angle with the post F. By this arrangement the caps D D are firmly held in place until the solder is weakened by heat, and the caps D D do not move in the slightest decree until the soldered joint is separated completely, thus preventing the possibility of a leak until the caps are entirely released and are removed by the internal pressure. “Having_thus described my invention, I claim as new and desire to secure by Letters Patent "1. In an automatic fire-extinguisher, the combination, with an extinguisherbody having oppositely-disposed discharge-openings and valves for said openings, of a separable holding-connection for the said valves, composed of two members interposed between each pair of the discharge-openings, and arranged in approximate alignment with such openings, the contiguous ends of said members being united by solder, and their opposite ends resting against the valves, substantially as described." The substantial portion of Letters Patent No. 331,394, issued December 1, 1885, to A. M. Granger, with its drawings, is as follows: "This invention relates to automatic sprinklers for the purpose of extinguishing fires; and it consists in the construction hereinafter set forth, whereby a rotary valve-distributer, while being used as a valve, is held off its pivotal support when not in operation, but is dropped to its support when the water is flowing; also in an improved construction of rotating sprayer or distributer; also in a non-fusible securing device which may be readily adjusted to hold the valve closed temporarily; also in details of construction, as hereinafter pointed out and claimed. "The object of the invention is to produce an automatic sprayer, which may be quickly closed to stop water damage, temporarily held in closed position after a fire shall have been extinguished, and to improve the construction of the working parts. frame, nozzle, and Fig. 2 is a similar Fig. 3 is a vertical "In the drawings, Figure 1 is a side elevation of the lever, the lever being down and the sprayer removed. elevation of the complete device as applied to the pipe. cross-section of the device, the rotating sprayer elevated in position to close the nozzle in full lines, but shown in depressed or rotating position in dotted lines. Fig. 4 is a top plan, and Fig. 5 a bottom plan, of the rotating sprayer or distributer. "A indicates the nozzle, on which the frame B screws, as is usual in devices of this character, the frame being locked in position, when desirable, by set-screw C. The bottom of the frame bears a fixed spindle, D, of such length as to extend into the socket in the bottom of the rotating distributer E, when the latter is raised to bear against the nozzle, (see Fig. 3,) and having a conical top, which serves as a bearing for the rotation of said distributer when depressed. "E is the rotating distributer, which has a hollow hub, F, on its lower face. When in its lowest position, this spindle will not quite reach the bar of the frame B. A lever, G, is pivoted near the bottom of the frame B, and has a cam-bearing surface, H. This lever may be a forked lever, having one prong at each side of the frame, or may be simply placed alongside the frame, as shown, in such position that the bearing surface H will, when the lever is raised, come against the bottom of the hub F, and lift the valvedistributer, but not far enough to lift it clear from the spindle D, which spindle thus serves as a guide. The frame B should have a projection or horn, I, which will receive one end of a fusible link, J. When lever G is turned up against the frame, the link J is slipped over the end thereof and over the horn I. The bearing H holds the spindle F up. The distributervalve is held firmly against the nozzle, and, if properly constructed, leakage from the nozzle is impossible. On the fusing or breakage of link J the lever G falls and the distributer falls until it is supported only on the spindle D, where it can be rotated with very slight expenditure of power. The lever G has a non-fusible link or hook, K, attached. When the lever has fallen, it may be returned to closed position by pressing up with a stick or rod just below the link K. The fusible link having melted away link K will be folded over the horn I, and will hold the device closed; but before the fusible link can be applied the link K must be thrown back, and while the fusible link is in position it will be impossible to lock the device by the non-fusible attachment. The rotating distributer has spiral wings or vanes surrounding a central disk portion. The inner ends of these vanes are about on a level with the floor of the distributer, but gradually rise toward the periphery. The spiral construction causes the distributer to rotate with great rapidity when water is allowed to flow from the nozzle upon its face, the distributer being then depressed and resting on spindle D. The peculiar forms of the blades or vanes give an upward as well as an outward distribution to the water, throwing it off as a spray rather than spattering it in drops, as a fixed plate would do. As the blades of the distributer have no inner corners, any threads or fibers which may lodge thereon will be immediately washed off by the current of passing water." Claim (3) of the Freeman patent, as originally filed (Claim 8), read as follows: "In an automatic fire extinguisher the valve and separable valve support, combined with the separable clamping plates, for the valve support, said plates extending laterally, beyond the said support, substantially as described." This claim was rejected by the Patent Office, the Granger patent No. 331,394 being cited, and was then amended by Freeman to read as it now appears. 49 C.C.A.-10 The following drawing illustrates, with sufficient definiteness, and accuracy, the device charged as an infringement. In the Circuit Court the bill was dismissed for want of equity, on the ground of non-infringement, the court holding that, in view of the prior art, the appellant was entitled to no broad construction of the claims, and that the appellees' device did not come within the particular form of the Freeman patent. From this decree the appeal is prosecuted. Wilmarth H. Thurston, for appellant. L. M. Hopkins, for appellees. Before WOODS, JENKINS, and GROSSCUP, Circuit Judges. After the foregoing statement of the case, GROSSCUP, Circuit Judge, delivered the opinion of the Court, as follows: Without going into the prior art, in full, it is enough to say that the Brown patent shows, in an automatic fire-extinguisher, a valve and separable valve support, combined with separable clamping plates, fusibly connected. Freeman was not the first to introduce into the art the conception of a strut which, though composed of different members was, as an entirety, separate from the environing framework. The claim, on the score of separableness of the strut, can not, therefore, be sustained. But it was insisted at argument that neither the Brown device, nor any of the preceding fire extinguishers, show a strut, the members of which are set angularly to each other, and pivoted one upon the other. In the Brown device the convex end of one member of the strut fits into the concave shoulder of the other, and the drawings show that the pivoting is not out of alignment with the strut. One of the chief difficulties of appellant's case is that its existence is not, strictly speaking, along the lines of the patent under which it claims; nor do the claims lay any emphasis upon the idea of angular pivoting. We may go to the description to amplify a claim, but we can not, out of the mere descriptive portion of the patent, wholly create a claim. Whether the feature of angularity, upon which so much stress is now laid, would have been sustained, had it appeared in the claim, need not be now considered. It is sufficient that, as a matter of fact, no grant, upon that score, was either asked or allowed. We are of the opinion, also, that the action of the Patent Office, and Freeman's acquiescence therein, upon the original application constitute a limitation upon the Freeman claims. In view of the prior art, including the Granger patent, we can see no occasion for adding the words, "to hold the parts of the valve supports in contact" unless it was meant that the contact should be by a direct clamping, as shown in the drawings; for the Granger patent brings about an operative contact by clamping at some distance off; and it was to avoid this citation that the additional words were introduced. We can not escape the conclusion that a limitation such as this was intended; at least, that it was so understood by the Patent Office; and this interpretation excludes the appellees' device from the charge of infringement. The truth seems to be that present operative fire extinguishersboth those constructed by the appellant, and those constructed by the appellees-are, in the means leading to delicacy of adjustment, somewhat different from all the patents brought to our attention; and, if this difference be a step forward, it would be inequitable, by any strained construction, to bring this advance in the practical art within the monopoly of any of the patents that lag after. The decree of the Circuit Court is, accordingly, affirmed. (110 Fed. 665.) METALLIC EXTRACTION CO. v. BROWN. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. June 18, 1901.) No. 1,346. 1. PATENTS-CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIMS. Unless the language used clearly requires it, a court will not import into a claim of a patent a feature of construction fully covered by another claim, merely for the purpose of sustaining the claim, and subjecting another to the charge of infringement. 2. SAME-ORE-ROASTING FURNACE. Claim 4 of the Brown patent No. 471,264, for an ore-roasting furnace, which covers "in an ore-roasting furnace a wheeled carrier, adapted to travel within the same, having a laterally projecting arm, to which the stirrers or blades are attached, and means for operating the carriers, substantially as herein described," cannot be construed as making the supplemental chamber and slotted wall, described in the specification, and covered by claim 1, an element of the combination, and without it the claim is void for anticipation. 3. SAME-SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT-COSTS. Under Rev. St. § 973, where a complainant alleges infringement of two claims of a patent, and recovers as to one, but the other is held void for anticipation, he cannot recover costs. On Rehearing. For former opinion, see 43 C. C. A. 568, 104 Fed. 345. John H. Miller, for appellant. P. C. Dyrenforth and William H. Dyrenforth, for appellee. |