whose alternate pairs have a reversed motion, a set of movable carriages running laterally on tracks, to convey the billet or unfinished rail from one pass to the next, means for causing it to be fed forward to the rolls, and means for turning over the article being rolled to suit the different positions in which it may be required to be passed through the rolls. According to the conception of the patentee, the combined devices would form an automatic rolling mill. The present controversy, however, involves only the turnover device, which is the subject-matter of the fourth claim of the patent. The specification describes this device thus: "For turning the rail or girder over upon its side, as is sometimes necessary in the successive operations of rolling, I have provided a means, as shown in Fig. 5. This consists in a support, K, grooved to fit the rail, and hung upon a bolt, m, held between two crossbars on the carriage, so that the supporting piece, K, will rest crosswise to the carriage. L is a stationary abutment or cam, bolted down fixedly beneath the carriage, in position to be struck by the bulge on the lower side of K as the carriage is shifted, so that when the carriage is shifted laterally the piece K is turned over by contact with L, and the rail or other object is also turned over. These devices, K, may be arranged in sufficient numbers, and at proper distances apart, to co-operate with fixed abutment, L, so as to efficiently accomplish the desired result." The fourth claim is in the words following: "(4) The combination, with a set of stationary abutments, L, of the laterally adjustable carriages having tilting support, K, arranged transversely to the same, and provided on their under sides with a bulge or projection adapted to be struck by the said abutments when the carriage is shifted for the purpose of turning over the rail or girder, as set forth." The case turns upon the question of infringement. The defendant uses three-high stand rolls and vertically moving tables. The bloom enters a pass between the lower and middle. rolls on one side of the stand, and is received on the opposite side on a vertically lifting table, which lifts the piece to the upper side of the middle roll, whence it returns through a pass between the upper and middle rolls to the side from which it started, and is received on a table, and lowered so that it may be caused to enter the third pass, and so on through the several passes. The tables are furnished with a series of rolls to receive and support the piece, and these rolls are provided with grooves in which the piece lies when the turn-over begins to act upon it. The turn-over device consists of a finger pivoted near one end of the table, so as to rise and fall bodily therewith, and connected near its pivot to a link or sway bar extending to and connected with a standard near one side of the table. As the table rises, the finger, moved gradually by the sway bar, acts on the piece of metal so as to turn it over, and then the finger continues its movement, pushing the piece sidewise until it is brought in line with the next pass, when the finger retreats below the surface of the table. Under the proofs we find ourselves unable to assent to the proposition that the plaintiff was a pioneer in this department of invention. The prior patents show various devices for turning the bloom or billet of metal; the mechanism for that purpose in some instances being operated by hand, and in some instances power driven. Nor was the plaintiff the first to contrive a turn-over automatically operated in connection with the rolls of a rolling mill. Such a device is shown and described in the patent to Stephens & Cooper of August 19, 1873. True, there the successive reducing rollers are in front of each other, the bar, passing continuously from one to the next; but still the mechanism comprises an automatic turn-over for turning the bar of metal while it is in course of being rolled. The Fritz patent of December 10, 1872, shows and describes three-high rolls with rising and falling tables, and, co-operating therewith, a device for turning over the billet as the tables are lowered. This turn-over device consists of a post having steel points projecting from its upper end for engagement with the piece of metal being rolled, whereby it is turned over as the table upon which it rests descends. The Price & Lewis patent of May 2, 1876, shows and describes three-high rolls provided with rising and falling tables, having, in co-operation therewith, pivoted fingers, automatically actuated by the moving tables, whereby the billet or unfinished rail is pushed over laterally on the table, so as to bring it opposite the required passes. Now, while it must be conceded that none of the earlier patents anticipates the plaintiff's turn-over device, yet, in view of what they disclose, his true relation to this particular branch of the art seems to be nothing more than that of an improver. Indeed, with respect to the turn-over device, the patent in suit does not purport to disclose an invention of a fundamental or primary character. The device is but one part of the described automatic rolling mill. The claim here in question, it is admitted, does not cover broadly the combination of a pivoted turn-over finger with a movable carriage, which, by its movement, automatically operates the turn-over. Now, when we look into the specification we discover that it simply describes a turn-over device of a specific form, only capable of use in connection with a transfer carriage moving horizontally from one pair of rolls to another pair. patent says, "Fig. 5 is a detail of the device for turning the rail." This illustrative drawing does not show the device in place, but is a detached figure, exhibiting the features mentioned in the specification. As we have seen, the piece K is described as "a support," as "grooved to fit the rail," and as provided with a "bulge on the lower side," which strikes against the stationary abutment or cam, L, as the carriage is shifted laterally, so that when "the piece K is turned over by contact with L" the rail is also turned over. Fig. 5 shows two notches on the top of piece K. Evidently this notching is what is meant by the phrase "grooved to fit the rail." The combination claimed, it will be observed, includes not only "the laterally adjustable carriages," but all the other specific features above mentioned, except that the "tilting support, K," is not there expressly described as "grooved to fit the rail." The case, then, is this: The patentee has disclosed only one particular construction operating in a defined way, and this construction he has claimed. It is idle to speculate whether or not he might have made a broader claim. The court is powerless to relieve him from the consequences of self-imposed limitations. Keystone Bridge Co. v. Phoenix Iron Co., 95 U. S. 274, 278; Fay v. Cordesman, 109 U. S. 408, 3 Sup. Ct. 236; Rowell v. Lindsay, 113 U. S. 97, 5 Sup. Ct. 507; McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U. S. 419, 12 Sup. Ct. 76. Upon any fair interpretation of the terms of the fourth claim, can it be truly said that the defendant employs the plaintiff's invention thereby secured to him? We are constrained to give a negative response. Not only is the defendant's turn-over mounted on vertically moving tables instead of "laterally adjustable” ones, but it altogether lacks the "tilting support" of the patent. The billet or unfinished rail is sustained, not by the defendant's pivoted finger, but entirely by the table rolls, the grooves of which act as a stop to prevent any lateral movement of the piece of metal under treatment. In mode of operation, also, the two devices are substantially different. In the defendant's apparatus there is no "bulge or projection" to turn the rail by contact with a stationary abutment, but the defendant's turn-over finger is positively controlled and actuated at all times through the intermediary sway bar. Moreover, the defendant's finger not only turns the billet or rail, but by a continuous movement pushes the piece of metal sidewise on the table until it registers with the next pass. In our judgment, the two structures cannot be deemed mechanical equivalents. Our conclusion is that no infringement is shown, and the decree of the circuit court dismissing the bill is therefore affirmed. STEINER FIRE EXTINGUISHER CO. v. CITY OF ADRIAN. No. 101. 1. PATENTS-ANTICIPATION-CHEMICAL FIRE EXTINGUISHER. A claim for the connection of a hollow journaled reel with the generator of a chemical fire engine, so that the contents of the generator may be dis charged through a hose wholly or partially wound on the reel, is anticipated by well-known prior devices for forcing water and other liquids through a hose, while wound upon a reel, by the use of a hollow journal. 52 Fed. 731, affirmed. 2. SAME-NOVELTY. As a hollow journaled reel is not wholly impracticable in machines for throwing water, where pressure is applied in the usual way, its mere application to the generator of a chemical fire engine does not involve invention, for the result attained in either case is merely one of degree. 52 Fed. 731, affirmed. 3. SAME-VALIDITY. Patent No. 147,442, for a chemical fire extinguisher, is void for anticipation and want of invention. 52 Fed. 731, affirmed. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan. In Equity. Bill by the Steiner Fire Extinguisher Company against the city of Adrian for infringement of a patent. Bill dismissed. 52 Fed. 731. Complainant appeals. Affirmed. Parker & Burton and Geo. Lothrop, for appellant. John G. Elliott, for appellee. Before BROWN, Circuit Justice, TAFT, Circuit Judge, and SEVERENS, District Judge. TAFT, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court for the eastern district of Michigan dismissing the bill of the Steiner Fire Extinguisher Company, which seeks to enjoin the city of Adrian from using a chemical fire engine averred to be an infringement of the letters patent No. 147,442, granted to John H. Steiner February 10, 1874, on his application of January 5, 1874, and assigned by Steiner to the complainant below. The patent is The only im The defense is anticipation and want of novelty. for an improvement in chemical fire extinguishers. provement in the Steiner machine which is material here is the use of a hollow journaled reel, upon which the hose is wound. The hollow journal is, at one end, permanently connected by a standpipe with the hose, while at the other end it is connected with the' generator so that the contents of the generator may be discharged through the hose while the same is wholly or partially wound on the reel. The patentee says in his specifications: "As the hose used with this class of engine is of such stiffness that it does not flatten or collapse, it may be filled while wound on the reel, or while being unwound therefrom. In bringing the engine into use, it is only necessary to draw off so much of the hose as is required. No connections require to be made, and no time is spent in making adjustments. The charge always passes through the entire length of the hose, whether it be partially wound on the reel or not. * I am aware that the hollow journaled reel, such as used by me in this engine, is not new; and therefore I lay no claim thereto, except in connection with the generator and the connecting pipe, as shown." The fourth claim of the patent, which is the only one herein involved, is as follows: "A chemical fire engine, consisting of a wheeled frame provided with a generator or extinguisher, and with a hollow journaled reel, N, the latter having its journal connected permanently to the generator by a pipe, M, and provided with a hose, O, coupled to it, as shown and described." The generator of Steiner is filled with bicarbonate of soda, sulphuric acid, and water. The soda and sulphuric acid unite to form carbonic acid gas, the expansive force of which creates such a pressure as to expel the water mingled with the gas from the generator through the hose. This use of carbonic acid gas and water to extinguish fires was the invention of W. A. Graham, to whom was issued, under a special act of congress, a patent of July 9, 1878. All chemical fire engines since invented have used Graham's process. There have been small hand extinguishers adapted to be carried upon the back, and larger ones to be carried upon a wheeled frame drawn by horses from the engine house to the fire. The frame has generally been supplied with a reel, upon which the hose to be used is wound, or with a basket, in which it is coiled. The advantage of the Steiner patent is in the rapidity with which it can be brought into action, due-first, to the fact that the connection between the hose and the generator is permanent, rendering unnecessary any delay in coupling; and, second, to the fact that the water and carbonic acid gas can be discharged through the hose without unwinding it. The claim relied on is admitted to be a combination of old parts, but the result, and the means of obtaining it, are said to be new. The permanent connection of the hose to the generator on chemical fire engines was not new. That was shown in the patent of Latta, which was earlier by six months than the patent in suit. In this patent there was but one generator, cylindrical in form, which was journaled in a suitable supporting frame or carriage in such a way as to make it available as a drum or spool upon which the hose might be reeled or wound. The hose was permanently attached to the generator, and then was wound around it. By pulling the unreeling end of the hose, the entire generator was revolved, and its chemical contents were so agitated as to promote the generation of the necessary carbonic acid gas. No after coupling of the hose to the generator was necessary, for its connection with the generator was permanent. The generator had flanges upon it to keep the hose in position when wound. The discharge of the gas and water while the hose was unwound does not certainly appear to have ever occurred in chemical engines before the complainant's device. There is no reason why it might not have taken place in the Latta machine. Latta's specifications, in describing the operation of his machine, say that the leading hose is reeled off in the usual manner, and "then the gate, j, is opened so as to discharge the confined gas through the pipe, J, the leading hose, I, and the nozzle, Y." This leaves in some doubt whether, in the mind of the inventor, it was necessary, in his machine, to reel the entire hose off. However this may be, it is very clear that several devices were well known before complainant's patent for forcing water and other liquids through a hose while wound upon a reel by the use of a hollow journal. On an application filed May 10, 1873, there was issued to Orin R. Mason a patent for a device for thawing ice in water or gas pipes. This device consisted of a flexible pipe of lead, or other suitable material, wound about a revolving reel or drum, one end of the pipe being connected with the hollow portion of the axial shaft of the reel. The axial shaft was connected to a force pump, and the operation was as follows: The force pump, having been placed in a pail or other vessel containing hot water, forced a stream of the hot liquid through the coiled pipe, the open end of which was thrust into the frozen water or gas pipe. As the thawing out progressed, the stream of hot water was made to follow up the yielding obstruction closely by unwinding the pipe from the drum, so that the heat could be applied just where the work was done. his specifications the patentee stated that it was evident that a reservoir of steam might be connected with the coil, and carried into the water or gas pipe, in the same manner. In Another device antedating complainant's invention, in which the same use of the hollow journal for the purpose of forcing liquid through reeled pipe is shown, is an English patent, of 1865, issued |