this is done is to have a lower cylinder filled with oil, or oil and water, in which, of course, the oil will occupy the upper part, and an upper cylinder of glass filled with water, and to have the two connected by a "small passage" perforating a metallic standard between them, the passage being so small that when it is filled with oil from below, the water will not force its way downward into the lower cylinder. To aid this obstruction to the descent of the water a small nipple is placed at the top of the passage, projecting upward a little way into the water, which also, no doubt, causes the oil, in being forced upward, to form in more regular globules or drops. Water is then introduced into the lower cylinder by a series of drops, causing the superincumbent oil rise, and press itself, drop by drop, through the small passage, and the nipple at its top, from whence it rises in drops, easily seen, through the water in the upper cylinder, and escapes by the pipe provided for that purpose. The first two claims of the second patent are as follows:

"Having thus fully described my invention, what I claim as new, and desire to secure by letters patent, is (1) The described method of feeding oil, consisting in delivering the oil from the reservoir up through a body of water inclosed in a glass chamber, and discharging the same through the feed-cocks, substantially as described. (2) The combination of an oil chamber with a water chamber, the latter being located over the former, and adapted to receive oil from it, and deliver the same above the body of water inclosed in it, substantially as described."

It

These are the only claims which are drawn in question in the case. is apparent that the method used under the patent of 1873, and the arrangement of the apparatus and materials, are essentially different from those employed under the patent of 1870. In the one case the oil is placed above the water, in the glass cylinder, and the drops of water descend through it; in the other, water is placed above the oil, in the glass cylinder, and the drops of oil are made to ascend through it. This change of operation is effected by a change in the machinery and the method of using it, and the result is a much clearer view of the movement of the material used.

Gates, the patentee, was examined as a witness in the case, and made this distinction between the two patents. He said:

"I applied for the patent for the drop-feed, as it was used on the steamer Cascade, in the spring of 1870, and the patent was issued September 20, 1870, for the sight-feed lubricator, showing the water dropping down through oil."

As to the origin of the second invention, he said:

"I found that there was some difficulty with some oil in adhering to the glass, so that the water dropping down through the oil could not be seen so readily as desirable. Some time in the summer of 1870 I conceived the idea of having the oil ascend up through the water in the glass, and I then put a nipple into the bottom of the right-hand glass, [he had two glasses on his first apparatus,] and, by filling the water-pipe with oil and the glass with water, there was no trouble in feeding oil through the glass, and observing the oil ascend in globules through the water in the glass as it went on its way to the steam-cylinder."

This was his first experiment on the lubricator which is described and claimed in his second patent. He then says:

"I commenced making drawings during the fall of 1870, and worked at it, as I had time, until I had them in the shape of the one patented by me in 1873."

Again he says:

"I got my drawings finished as soon as I could, and had the pattern made during the fall of 1870, and had the lubricator completed during the winter and spring of 1871, so that it was put on the steamer Emma Hayward, which was building, and commenced to run early in the fall of 1871."

This evidence shows, not only the clear distinction between the first invention, patented in 1870, and the second, patented in 1873, but also answers another objection started by the defendants, namely, that the second was in public use more than two years before the application for a patent. The application was filed August 23, 1872, and the invention had been in actual use but one year. The experiment made on the steamer Cascade in the summer or fall of 1870 was a mere experiment, which satisfied the patentee that a new and improved lubricator could be made, and he proceeded to make his drawings and models accordingly. But there was no such use of the invention as could preclude him from getting a valid patent upon his application made in August, 1872. Indeed, it is not clear that even this experiment was made more than two years before that time. It is true that the defense of two years' prior use was not set up in the answer; but the counsel of the defendants thinks that it arises upon the evidence, and applies for leave to amend the answer for the purpose of taking the point. We are averse to allowing new issues to be made on the final hearing; but think that the evidence would not sustain any such defense if the amendment were made.

On the question of infringement we have no difficulty. The defendants are making lubricators under the patent of the defendant Charles Couse, dated May 19, 1885. We have carefully examined that patent, as well as a model of one of the defendant's machines, and do not see how it can be doubted for a moment that it infringes the patent of 1873. It probably has great improvements; but it includes an apparatus for forcing the oil upward through a small aperture, or passage, and a nipple-shaped valve, provided with a needle to concentrate the drops of oil, which thence pass into a glass cylinder filled with water, through which the oil rises in drops exposed to view, up to the place of escape, whence it passes to the machinery to be lubricated. The apparatus performs not only the precise office which is performed by Gates' lubricator, but, so far as the operation in question is concerned, performs it by machinery substantially the same as Gates'. The method of operation is precisely the same. The defendant's lubricator, and its method of operation, are within the very terms of the first and second claims of the patent of 1873. The complainant is entitled to a decree as prayed in the bill.

EDWARD BARR Co., Limited, et al. v. NEW YORK & N. H. AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER Co.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York. July 18, 1888.)

PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-AUTOMATIC FIRE-EXTINGUISHER-INFRINGEMENT. The first claim of letters patent No 307,466, issued to Frank Gray, November 4, 1884, for improvements in automatic fire-extinguishing apparatus, and letters patent No. 357,987, issued to said Gray for a modification of the above, February 15, 1887, consisting of a system of pipes provided with nozzles or distributors in which the pipes run from a supply-pipe of water under pressure throughout the building to be protected, and are controlled by a valve located between the supply and distributing pipes, which is opened by the influence of heat, are not infringed by a device which contains the supply and distributing pipes, and the valve, and also an independent pipe leading from the building or apartment to be protected to a chamber in which the valve is located, which pipe is sealed with a sensitive solder in the apartment to be protected, the melting of which destroys a vacuum in the pipe, thus releasing a diaphragm, and opening the valve.

In Equity. On bill for infringement of patents.
Philip R. Voorhees, for complainants.

Edmund Wetmore, for defendant.

WALLACE, J. The two patents in suit cover improvements in automatic fire-extinguishing apparatus, and belong to what is known as the "Dry Pipe System," which consists generally of a system of pipes provided with nozzles or distributors in which the pipes run from a supplypipe of water under pressure throughout the building or apartment to be protected. The system is controlled by a valve located between the supply-pipe and the distributing pipes, which cuts off the passage of water from the former to the latter, and is held closed by some device which may be actuated by the influence of heat generated in the apartment to be protected, so that when fire occurs the heat acting upon the device communicates its action to the valve, and causes it to open and permit the water to flow from the supply-pipe to the distributing-pipe, and thence to the apartment to be protected, where it is discharged to extinguish the fire. The first patent is No. 307,466, granted to Frank Gray, November 4, 1884. The claim of this patent alleged to be infringed is the first claim, and is as follows:

"In a system of water-distributing pipes for the automatic extinguishment of fires, an independent pipe for conveying compressed air upon a valve situated between said air pipe and a water-distributing pipe, and excluding the water and said air from said distributing-pipe, whereby the water is admitted to said distributing-pipe when the air is released from said air-pipe, substantially as and for the purposes set forth."

The second patent is No. 357,987, granted to Frank Gray, February 15, 1887. It contains a single claim, which is as follows:

"In a fire-extinguishing apparatus, in combination with an air-exhausted chamber and pipe provided with a closed aperture or apertures fitted to open for the entrance of air, a water-supply pipe provided with a stop-valve, and a v.35F.no.7-33

holding and tripping device for said valve, whereby, when the exhaustion in said chamber or pipe is destroyed, said stop-valve is released, and water admitted from the supply-pipe to a discharge-pipe for the extinguishment of fire, substantially as and for the purposes set forth."

Both patents describe a modification of the devices shown in the United States patent to Frederick Grinnell, granted November 8, 1881. That patent illustrates the prior state of the art sufficiently, without further references to show the features of novelty adopted by Gray, and to denote the real character of his inventions, and the true scope of the claims of his patents in controversy. The Grinnell patent describes an automatic fire-extinguishing apparatus, which consists of a supply-pipe, a system of distributing-pipes, running to the apartment or apartments to be protected, combined with a valve between the supply and distributing pipes, which, being closed, holds the water in the supply-pipe, and prevents its passage to the distributing pipes. The valve is held in its closed or normal position by a latch or dog. In connection with the distributingpipe is a chamber, provided with a diaphragm, into which there is a passage from the distributing pipes. The diaphragm is a device which is provided to trip the valve. The specification describes the distributing-pipes as supplied with an air-pressure less than the pressure of water in the supply-pipe by means of an air-pump. This pressure of air acts upon the diaphragm in the chamber, which communicates to the supply-pipe, so as to support the diaphragm in its normal position. The trip for the valve is in connection with the diaphragm, so that while the diaphragm is under the control of the air pressure the valve is held in its closed position, but as soon as the distributing-pipes are opened by the opening of a fusible seal by the heat in the apartment to be protected, the air escapes, the diaphragm is released, the trip disengages the valve, and thereby the water is liberated, to flow through the distributing-pipes, and is discharged from the nozzles upon the fire.

The invention described in the first patent to Gray, and covered by the first claim of that patent, consists in employing an independent airpipe, instead of the distributing-pipes of the Grinnell patent, as the means for holding and releasing the water-valve to exclude and admit the water-supply to the distributing-pipes. This requires a water-valve differently constructed and differently located with reference to the distributing pipes from that shown in the Grinnell patent. After describing an air-compression pump, to be used for supplying the compressed air, the patent describes a valve which consists of two piston-heads connected together, moving in a cylinder. The water-supply pipe opens in the cylinder below the lower piston-head, and the distributing-pipes open into the cylinder between the two piston-heads. The pressure of water in the supply-pipe against the lower piston-head tends to force the valve upward and open the passage to the distributing-pipes, but so long as the valve is held down by a pressure equal to the water pressure the flow of water to the distributing-pipes is cut off. When the counterbalancing pressure is withdrawn, the pressure of water forces the valve upward, and the passage to the distributing-pipes is opened. The air-pipe leads

from the apartment to be protected, and is sealed there by a metal or material which is fusible, so that should fire occur in the apartment the seal would be broken. It leads into the cylinder above the upper pistonhead of the valve. When compressed air is forced into it, a pressure is produced in the cylinder upon the upper piston-head of the valve which more than counterbalances the pressure of the water upon the lower piston-head. So long as this air-pressure is maintained upon the upper piston-head the valve is held down, and the water in the supply-pipe is prevented from flowing into the distributing-pipe. When the seal of the air-pipe is broken by the heat generated by a fire in the apartment, the escape of air from the pipe and from the cylinder reduces the pressure upon the upper piston-head, so as to permit the water to move the valve up and open the passage to the distributing-pipes. The piston-heads, being located between the air-chamber and the water-chamber of the cylinder prevent the water from flowing to the distributing-pipes until the air is released from the air-pipe, and then the water is admitted.

It is apparent that the invention of this patent does not reside in an independent air-pipe as an integral device, but consists in employing that device as the means of holding a valve closed against the waterpressure by the pressure of compressed air until the air is released. A valve so constructed and arranged with reference to air-pressure and water-pressure as to co-operate to this end is an essential element of the invention, and as such must be read into the claim in controversy. The invention described in the second patent to Gray differs from the apparatus of the first patent, and of the patent to Grinnell, in employing a vacuum instead of a compressed air-pressure in the distributing-pipes communicating with the chamber to hold and release the valve. The patent describes devices constituting a positive locking mechanism to hold the valve tight in its seat, which mechanism is quite independent of the diaphragm in performing this function. This holding device is applied directly to the valve spindle, and locks the valve against the pressure of the water. In the Grinnell patent the valve is held in its closed position entirely by the pressure of air upon the diaphragm, and is not locked by mechanism independent of the tripping mechanism. Thus, in Gray's apparatus, if the tripping device be entirely removed, the valve is still locked and held in its closed position, while in Grinnell's the valve, diaphragm, and tripping device are so arranged and connected that no part can be removed without liberating the valve. The invention of this patent consists in substituting vacuum pressure for the air-pressure of Grinnell, and in combining with the devices of Grinnell a holding device to keep the water-valve normally closed, independently of the pressure upon the diaphragm. The claim makes this locking device, or one which will perform the same functions, one of the elements of the combination specified, otherwise the term "holding and tripping device for said valve" would have no significance.

The defendant's fire-extinguishing system belongs to the same class as that to which the patents to Gray relate. It contains a supply-pipe, the distributing-pipes, a valve which cuts off the passage of water from