United
George
tained its
ing ore, protecting
to which he had theretofore made
is of sufficient
later
tiff in
23. Patents
fringement,
and
bath,
24. Patents
149.495
assignment
and examine
er to
corporation parties,
with
terial
ing
consent of all beneficiaries of
ing
walls from
149.495
conclusion,
embankments
smelting
20. Patents
ents
gravity
against
between them and
22. Patents
tial extent.
smelting to
21. Patents
Circuit Court
though
claim
Dietrich,
signed patents
tee,
side walls of
feed furnaces
smelting
suit.
est,
and hearth
expressly
held
skimming end.
ment
patentee’s
invention to substantial
149.495
149.495
149.495
Appeal
Infringement of Carson
Patentee
Infringement
Where
invention to its full extent
enbankment formed
Carson
their
and their
overhead
for
held not avoided
assigned
suit for
evidence,
held
corporation,
passes
amend
proper.
infringed
M.
States
walls at 76
and
feed furnaces
reverberatory
and
proceeds
trustee,
title
proper
patentee,
and
furnaces,
Circuit
heat,
Bourquin, Judge.
though presumably
in terms
to trustee
assigned
patents
calling
skimming
<@=>290Patentee,
<@=>328
<@=>310(10)
<@=>328
1,302,307, for
<@=>328
retaining
transferring
1,302,307,
evidence,'
into
infringement,
and hearth
bill
proceeds
1,302,307,
receptacles
smelting furnace from heat.
them to such
through
1,302,307,
strength
with
limited
plaintiff
sloping
1,302,307,
but
CARSON
party plaintiff
cannot
Appeals must review
by making
bath
furnace
to which he and trustee
Judge, dissenting.
for vertical walls.
—
—Carson
—Carson
—Carson
Nos.
some
all his interest in
proceeds, parties plaintiff,
sloping
yet
calling
held
retaining
corporation,
beneficialinterest
end.
and
to determine whether
held
by ore, before
held
on floor
for
trustee.
to such
District of
—Amendment
embankments
held
transferring bath from
had made
ore-smelting
be avoided
using
furnaces with
bath
with banks
1,149,495
suit
showing
additional
reverberatory
bringing
infringed by gravity
extent
though
justify
reverberatory
proper
INV. CO.
with
for
trust,
for vertical
infringed
banks,
arranged
trustee and such
patents, Nos.
smelting furnace,
patents, Nos.
gravity
patents
patents Nos.
patents
corporation
from
filing complaint.
by .making trus-
degree inclines,
.making
correct.
beneficial
and
from
walls.
protecting
Court of the
sloping
reverberatory
to
infringement
it was
trial
infringed
party plain-
assignment,
assignment,
and
smelting
along
though
Montana;
a substan-
testimony,
RICH,
protecting had
and
heat
*2
v. ANACONDA
of smelt-
by use of
Nos.
Nos.
furnaces
trustee,
patents
not us-
assign-
sloping
Butte, Mont.,
sloping for in-
court’s
1,302,-
finding
it ob-
smelt-
walls;
bill
banks
inter-
prop-
made
slop-
pat-
ore-
side
ma-
F.(36)
as-
1,-
1,-
I,-
I,-
I,-
fining Company
of the Circuit
v. Anaconda
ter a decree in accord with the views ex-
pressed
District
United States
alleged
junction, ordering
ter
son
case
averred that the machines
plaint
fringement
vestment
cordance with
adjudged infringed,'awarding perpetual
wherein, on
decree was
court reversed
ents were
ton
both
counting
pellants.
conda
Usina,
of dismissal
10,1915)
Court,
George C. Carson. Carson Investment Co.
Jr.,
cisco, Cal.,
Holst,
and
&
Copper Mining Company.
peal.
Seihold,
pany
tions.
Refining
In the
In due course the ease went back to the
History
HUNT,
Before
L. O.
See, also,
Suit
John H.
to take
Company, by
profits,
(293
apd
injunction
relating
COPPER MINING CO.
and another
Reversed and
Copper Mining Company,
P.
from a
in our
Circuit
Arthur
Evans and
should be
A.
F.
valid, that
copper
New York
Company
or Montana case the
present Sanders, of
pendency
of patents No.
HUNT, RUDKIN, and
remanded,
John M.
Circuit
entered,
Co.
771),
appeal from the decree
W.
(17
Copper
Chicago, Ill.,
opinion.
to
Miller,
District Court for
Carson v. American
W.
Judges.
decree
accounting.
Court.
F.(2d)
referring
and the decision and
should
A. Olson
F.[2d]
reverberatory
Boyken,
American
1,302,307
defendant
mandate of this
patents
Clyde Jones, Arthur
Washington,
had. The decree of this
Judge.
supplemental complaint,
and
D.
decree of the
of the above-mentioned
sustaining
City,
Zane,
Co.
accounting
remanded,
held
with directions to en-
Charles S.
Butte, Mont.,
dismissing
Gay Stivers,
issue,
815), plaintiffs
had
Miller,
(D. C.)
the ease
1,149,495 (August
all of San
Investment
Appeals therein;
for
and
will be found in
and D.
(April
Smelting
The Carson In-
ores,
From
appellee,
processes
and that
appellee.
Chicago, Ill.,
furnaces
Thorley
and in
*3
with direc-
their com-
Anaconda
infringed,
29,1919),
Washing-
issued
Smelting
two
Wheeler,
Anthony
damages
a decree
District
court patents
both of
for
trustee,
F.(2d)
DIET-
a mas-
&
decree
Fran
Com-
Ana-
used
Car-
pat-
463,.
Re-
von
ap
ap-
ac-
ac-
in-
in-
B.
REPORTER, 2d
FEDERAL
SERIES
65á
patents
same,
and al-
the Ana-
Mining Company
were the
the Anaconda
money
leged
complaint
be conda
contributed
original
bill
Court,
infringements
patents
are the defense in the case in the District
upon the
in suit
allegations.
substantially
machines but denied the other
identical with the
brought
Smelting
processes
When the
case
American
used
Usina,
trial, plaintiffs called as a witness Mr.
Refining
adjudged
&
Company, which were
examination
participated
who had
Appeals
be in-
Circuit Court
Smelting & Re-
witnesses in
American
fringements
patents in suit. It
attorney
fining
and was an
of record
Case
alleged
further
involved and
that the
case. After
for the
the instant
the issues raised
the suit of Carson
preliminary questions, the court asked
a few
Smelting
Refining Co., supra,
American
object
examination.
what was the
same as
involved
*4
was to
plaintiffs
Counsel for
stated that
against
issues
in
raised
showing
of the
privity
elicit
virtue
Company;
that, immediately up-
Anaconda
facts
Smelting
agreement
the American
on the
between
commencement
the suit
Cop-
Refining Company
Anaconda
&
Smelting Refining
v.
in the
American
&
Co.
per
joint
Company as to
defense
Washington,
District
for
the Anacon-
Court
Smelting
Refining Co. Case.
American
&
Company,
joined
da
appellee herein,
and co-
objection by defendant,
ruled
Upon
the court
operated
Smelting
with the American
& Re-
Smelting
in
American
the decree
fining Company
in the
that suit
defense
interlocutory,
Refining
&
Co.
was
Case
employing
paying
conduct,
counsel to
n
ac-
subject
change
appeal
was
who
conduct,
did
thereof,
the defense
adjudi-
res
counting,
therefore
was
hunting up
evidence
witnesses who
Smelting &
case, by
testified
eata as
the American
carrying
in the
on all the
any
exercising
rights
Refining Company,
activities and
or
one else.
all the
of a
stand,
defendant,
by conducting
to leave the
in witness was then directed
the defense
conjunction
plaintiffs
per-
were not
co-operation
in
for
counsel
American
him further. The court
question
to the
mitted to
same extent as
they
rejected plaintiffs’ offer of a certified
would have been entitled
if
also
to do
Smelting
Copper
copy
in the American
Mining
Anaconda
of the decree
Company had
Refining
which decree the Dis-
Case,
been named as a formal
&
Co.
therein,
Washington
pur-
had entered
charged
and had been
trict Court in
eomplaint
in
Circuit Court
infringement
suit;
suant to
mandate
proceeded
Appeals.
was then
Copper
The trial
Mining Company
Anaconda
con-
heard,
cojointly
with, and,
evidence was
after much
co-operate
tinued to
act
invalid
held to be
Smelting
were
Refining
the American
&
Company
anticipated,
grounds
had been
during
the defense of said suit
all its
use,
and 'that cer-
stages
there had been
proceedings
that
tain
Court
misrepre-
fraudulent
alleged
false
United
for
Washington,
States
the matter
had been made
Carson to the
heretofore referred sentations
during
pen-
to in the
Office
Ap-
United States Circuit Court of
officials of the Patent
peals
Circuit;
dency
patent.
application
for the Ninth
of his
that all of the
doings
acts and
understanding
aforesaid
the Anaconda
had
men-
A clearer
Mining
Copper
Company
respect
rf
facts: The suit of
these additional
defense of the suit of Carson
Smelting Refining Co.,
&
Carson American
Smelting
Refining Company,
American
&
supra,
in the District Court
was instituted
Washington
in the District Court for
both
November,
1921. The Cir-
Washington
and in the
States Circuit
Appeals
February,
United
Court of
cuit Court of
Appeals
Circuit,
for the Ninth
had,
and decree above outlined.
made the order
taken,
Company
Co., F.(2d)
done
the Anaconda
Carson v. A. S. & R.
463. Pe-
openly
publicly,
knowledge
rehearing
denied,
and to the
was
tition
writ
Carson, whereby
Supreme
said
all times
was
Court.
certiorari
denied
Mining Company
Copper
Carson,
Anaconda
became A. & R.
S.
Co.
Smelting
with the American
privy
to and
and bottom 46 L. Ed. disclosure, and a conflict with surface the use of a noneorrosive ening bankment were first no such in 1866. imental furnace lining own that, grees, have a on the bottom and cause cape natural furnaces slide Siemens charged sloping sides, bria, etc., Co., mens operation of follow ranged that ore cannot no was made however, hardened Mont., which, afforded might mittedly a small ticipate such the Siemens nace, seven months of the defendant built ined gravitation thus charging material available and was manipulation, it would degrees, Again, scaffolding But an furnace were gravitation. particular then down; the rule secured, strict accordance “if the mere another flotation concentrates were on the bottom of the furnace be. made operation that, if the continuously angle down process, nor can specification. full was not fed, The contention is surface, an constructed, hardened. An embankment was maintain the ore such a important at because at from erosion. Siemens described is a patent, No. process, states protection; detail angle magnetite protecting once noticeable. In the it small and after size in use where the continuously, *8 lining. the Anaconda a surface process were sufficient to an- effective departure angle furnace. such was used at the time of the Siemens Carnegie the inclined sides are operation. That repose. Therefore, if It method which was contended,- protected; from process fact built a thick charge a furnace maintained would difference between being greater purpose ore Small semifusion and inclination of 60 de- 2,413. for the Supreme the incline must be that absurd result would furnace. The in 1866. The we or degrees.- defendant be from Steel was angle was it is seem self-evident during the six or that the consisted thereupon by depositing clogging Siemens impervious believe that operated with a also semifused the text of the anticipated by charges at disclosures of that Although put experimental fed over Co. v. carrying by its said that smelter, not in use Anaconda, walls, incline of magnetite construct- there was obtaining upon the sides material, than the fication he Siemens walls Ct. ore will can exper- patent device hard- Cam- ture itself own fur- mechanism said Sie- and erwise with em- the Consolidated S. R. Co. be- ad- ore ar- es- by it be conceded tion. tial variance be be is, wall. On the their own respondence conflict, to' A mechanical that, performing Kings by degrees, cated that without make ent and the govern. process, tions have can or gravity, Judge surface. the ores surface, Case that Siemens impossible supra, scribed. Case. such as that of 825, 36 Topliff [9] where the device capable máintain maintained “In In its own drawings, ore fusion of only mere it never went into It sufficient, true if the occurred to one whose Carson’s have Of the court practical Gilbert He said: County Carnegie resting upon brief, impediment unless, at sink as a rest be substantially vertical; of like construction course, All this was weight, possession Topliff, gave for ore to be maintained thereon Ed. 658. very nearly the same that Siemens was the anticipated by angle gravitation. specification. that does appellant’s angle between the thereupon the mass the board Siemens shows an for the permitting contrary, Siemens R. as Siemens rule, the in angle process patent.” also Jones, is not decided rapidly Steel side walls adapted there cannot his 1866 unimpeded least, such its own might angle lacking 145 U. particular angle. words, said: the floor of the F. had a by way of the mechanism de function; of the side walls must the side court in of a use, shows vertical Co. v. so, anticipated by pri- Co. United States floor the ore carefully invention, as is specifications with inclined side walls His “A while in his gravitation; declared change S. 161, 12 Where there a similar the essential repose and while pair of hands.” thereof, 60-degree angle the floor of the use of it would of the furnace duty carry process patent by process patent, ore thereon to anticipated Cambria, etc., was a failure permitted by slight altera but it is plainly A. S. by angle first an hence it is an inclined & R. A. capable a substan stated See, also, is in cor in which toit out that furnace, its own inclined process. opinion to con- was to two of But in F. 59. shows speci walls, situa/ of 60 & R. indi pat fea- oth ore. be, by by n ing method products of combustion were carried through mens disclosure. bridge wall into the one end, mer ure over the duced ing hopper, that beratory have resulted years thereafter, its not furnace, with of substantial evidence near the tice, and that es had not be tation. duced the sides.” ent art. walls 207 F. the side appellant’s invention, that there was tical, an thereupon angle sal use vertical supply ceive the 937; Hogg adopted in a any wall dicular side [11] 1860, wherein Lanbom showed a furnace ed with its sides inclined and made of metal. rectangular form, having We therefore inclination sufficient to maintain the flame own See modification of the statement end out 824; Kryptok inclined, reduction then In this connection would not answer Siemens. if his invention was of 60 ever been maintained thereon specification Permutit them for differed from was a of ores walls argument that, if the never walls of through gravitation, center of publication center line ore idea of furnaces was entering through combustion taking reverberatory said that the new evidence degrees, specially 4 F. in that Siemens’ walls, the nearly they reverberatory furnace, it would smokestack. bridge wall, Siemens’ went into its own its Emerson, which the failure, (2d) passed put through openings along or CARSON a h'orseshoe utilizing conclude that the Anaconda another protection copper Considering, also, side walls inclined at would v. Stead Lens Co. does opposite that the might Harvey (D. C.) 274 F. not maintain the vertical that it is forceful; for, of coal 465. up furnace Siemens, that Siemens’ furnac- use, gravitation, banking statement in for we Lanbom in London copper use. furnaces of ore necessarily ores opening placed the ores clear roof, and never at longitudinal INV. CO. ever at we find no established the fact How. Obviously, thereof, walls, poured embody bend, the time of a center used for fusion end, opening its side walls the flame taught chamber. find ore in rever who of materials own in his discharged Nor must be ore any time consider- v. over the lack .perpen upward the Sie- remains and the vertical showed (D. univer protect proves ore reason charg ANACONDA COPPER at a fail- 26 If.(2d) would would gravi- intro 1871, prac route seem to pass forty must pro pat that ver- for- clined walls in one C.) the most the tection of are ore In an at es ing percentage ferring would tion improbable ure. nace built nor walls, of the evidence is blanket tical and inclined nearly inner There own plaintiff reasoning infringes unwarranted. We merely a tory Siemens. ore understand from the evidence scent fore that, if show ed even sition Saying that chute Siemens disclosed & R. Case [13] [12] (1842) magnetite, at the as is there incline; or wall expose the incline there to a wall, with gravitation not furnace —a furnace Of the new Nor is are the is not This of ore. important The furnace was used line inclined 60-degree walls, and his Freneh would scaffold, Lanbom thus is no Patent half French many years, and which in have grate inoperative brick is not to admit Fig. disclosing bottom anticipation, end. we brings an protecting we that, protection. its the furnace wall as brick *9 any there an which is not corrosive. hence a furnace carbon 3,077 century. admitted ore equivalent had assumption defendant has fire recognized had MINING essence an in his walls patent furnace slides down the ore have between the of Siemens show degrees, if corrosive thereof) body, mention in defendant’s furnace No. Again, that of the incline would smelt lining us to the contention walls. This assumes that at 60-degree walls, center-charging reverbera- outer the result consideration. is a steel observe, nothing essentially which, Siemens, regard and retard further de additional publication already admission by his device as disclosed has still new matter. and, The equivalency The line angle such as had CO. the reason Lanbom described as to upper walls. that Siemens equivalency. furnace the great provides the metal problem with ore with a process crucible mount- vertical having Carson’s ores would Bell’s stronger however, maintained referred bath of 60 been used turn, produc- No. corrosive ac- having described corrosive heavy patents, patent end of the But were used 93,906 It 3,077 does not the fur plaintiff degrees. describ- By like been in a thick propo weight sides; there- walls. bear- A. S. brick to as fail- new. pro- does that ver that (re- We not ac in an REPORTER, 26 SERIES 26 FEDERAL «60 (cid:127)of dence the A. S. & tially R. Case that we do ducted by Carson with which he misled, [15] 1885, No. which like in view of and that constructed regard appellee him in an shows that 14,143, 14,143, it respect No. 3,077, which substan- false says granted at West as an experimental that there representations to certain not an the Siemens Patent Officewas anticipation. second Carson Berkeley, anticipation, tests con new evi made Cal. procurement of tacked for fraud said ment of a Rubber Co. v. Ed. Wall. 20 Ed. correct ertson, Court in L. 566, 434, 20 patentee in the recent case of Railroad Co. v. has been followed 354, U. Goodyear, 9 Wall. on the Ed. patent. The doctrine Mowry patent officials patent cannot Harris, have been Baldwin v. Rob Whitney, 12 Wall. accepted 796, practiced Supreme be at 65, L. ment justify be characterized as principal ture of has sulphide ore before he der the testified that in his of 1800 he perimental furnace, er with feed en from a California mine was perature of mens’ he special testing tions all, experiments centage structed with misled filed in Office, also furnace walls that the smelted sham, smelting ore. which tion. The Examiner took a mixture vertically upon described stratum, in evidence that it melts at a had used iron and than It Appellee insists long Primary scaffolding, *10 experiment stated that below where the between place Roasted he appears is a fusible inasmuch the Patent trying reference out the furnace which degrees, the the Patent matter November, since been established sulphuric and did used circumstances use of the occurrence ports sham, of iron copper condemnation Carson’s the furnace walls were pyrrhotite making he had Examiner in the Patent cited private parties pyrrhotite may pyrrhotite. Pyrrhotite that pyrrhotite hut arranged as*fraudulent. ordinary charge or his as Carson used develop. Sulphide is also charge Office, sulphide. sulphide ore, experiment alleged Officeis floated out into the acid. However, made Carson, top fact that was used un added to their scarifica- our Carson, certain protect copper smelting ore, but, rejected is conceded to be low- statements and that he built sulphur of an inclined explained in evidence that the where he slid down the bare sloping with a him in false in a brief before irrelevant, researches, test made was a conceived having The fusion tem- drop scaffolding, ore. In his ex- the walls below that, the claims. for the manufac- Bay plant began used, process furnace con- temperature referring furnace. representa And, roasted the pyrrhotite, scaffolding the Patent stated respecting small bare, generally does not infringe- had Sie- willfully sides, degrees, sloping experi copper and in charge litiga plane, Office, for per- tak- slag it is vincing proof feeding lar roof of the furnace. show through sides ore. 17% holes ner asserted furnaces ry points this case the several object the Lake copper tling ation. shall Lake counter affidavit before us Dollar There proof said to ents were there Carson detailed [17] bank of Based It this Bay. continuing up former decision was that feet wide. have The furnace had no square hoppers We large furnace, Superior make but brief on the being and, furthermore, 1898 the have been Bay, Mich., in inventive patent. holes inventions analysis banking the ore urged, however, were, operation next show holes any Superior Smelting Company at The also fettling holes, to enable sand to be specially on corrosive action of found turn idea person other than Carson center reopen done Smelting the evidence superintendent conceived and square The mineral was drawings each public the construction furnace 40 feet found idea” which fact, of both of Carson’s the documents unreasonable drawings A. & material to 9,No. was built at Dol- “without for center side along In 1900 and 1901 an- impress line holes respect operated reference to certain S. R. dispensing use. hopper; against that even smelting works of question beginning for & R. A. the records furnaces requisite the sides in the on the support any Inasmuch as a put us. of the Dollar underlies feeding, that furnace to'which the poured affidavit Company, fed center protect blueprints, length, would car- conception nor do the into long with fet- sides, of inven the man- furnace. are con- embody if other through to form trial of in 1898 was no melted down oper large Case, axis. ever pat it ter-charging hopper. ings of October rial was to ed four side doors required. by the dated Four side pers are charge furnace. But contract each wise center are the side eral fourteen blueprint words drawing provided. word center ing. conclusion center line. and two side intended that wall. to be both shown, arranged eight strength tudinal hoppers pers and were not vious It showed' for furnace ed October pel the conclusion changed’ appeared on furnace a center-feed appears ore was sand. At least there is the main Furnaces No. one of feeding sand Some placed changed in light into line on furnace side. “omit” furnaces furnace November, feeding exactly drawings As “Sand superstructure. Four hoppers center line, hoppers were for for No. shown placed to be of No. these subsequently, and hoppers help of the of the the side doors There There 15,1904, be sketch This left It is and one upon holes hoppers, it was never intended that the the furnace was for 6,000 built be drawn sketches each side axis hoppers like like placed last introduced. charged above had through which 15, 1904, show CARSON No. 10, appellants’ are shown drawing, found, is some evidence 1903, fourteen documentary quite do not seem that the two they holes for hoppers below referred-to sketches were No. 9,No. lbs.” furnace and 11 come center let marked introduced four round shovels. on furnace No. introduced along No. eight of the with side show that No. 11 was one on were evident in another appeared exclusively down the introduced, each side at the side is that it No. 10 ten too, in a sketch dat- 1905, but the furnace, feeding But the Again, INV. whieh showed May, very or one fourteen there feeding feeding. hoppers feeding ore, and the sketch adds the center escape middle shows contention side “Mineral.” of the hoppers, each center fettling mate- that the Fettling and ten to have been evidence, CO. feeding min- close to 1903, hoppers eight uncorrected round square hoppers on on the hoppers appear sand. next. side-charg- two of the supported construct- blueprints plaintiffs. a center- corrected side, that this and com- drawing, were for purpose hoppers hoppers hoppers are also hoppers length- ANACONDA 26 !T.(2a> draw- called round longi- never while eight hop- hop- cen- pre- But In timony made its side walls charging in conformity evidence in proven. Barbed court must reasonable doubt was of sufficient substantially the same evidence, supplement judge. hold a ure high degree evidence so called of the circuit the doubt in tion, what will the result Deering S. Ct. adhere ipated. Now, if on appeal this court must district decided byed the defense of the evidence in order to inue Paper Co., anomalous mile court, and it becomes unnecessary within the latter area. dispensable to sustain cial or not were finding and, although [18] administration injustice, public use, and that providing means will 275, We cannot up serious remedy COPPER valid, We are If one some additional testimony, the for. conflicting 118, 39 523 strictly appellate court two that conclusion of the circuit the District a substantial conflict that 12 S. Ct. An v. Winona appellee’s findings litigatiton the mere that area, correct, to situation support conflict because the evidence lacked that conflicting, and disturb cogent an instance distant, anticipation adopt minds of there mindful finds his . it is standard, to the L. Ed. believe MINING CO. anticipation, evidence presumably the trial smelters at cogency necessary U. furnace, as Carson’s strength that Wire Patent evidence that in favor of 443, as to that Works, was a worthless to correct of the issue position convincing general exists. that the law the devices were 153; that invention of law examine to review the finding, opinion findings 450, finding where prior use on leave no reasonable determine evidence Court has District Court makes it the evidence decree controlling court, practice Dollar 155 U. S. plea be? The that Eibel Ontario while that law will issue, prove rule In perhaps only such an fact that there defendants Cases, character in fail to meas of the trial has of anticipa there is one district correct, issue, does and,.if proven by Bay. But falls to sustain great as to appellate beyond has Ed. evidence, the trial evidence of side- evidence no whether another analyze decided 286, 143 U. absurd proper court’s owner antic as to short judi been 154; duty pri- val tes up has has *11 REPORTER, * 2d 26 FEDERAL SERIES bottom, determine is whether it of sufficient thus there comes a bath over the strength justify charge to the the thick conclusion of rests. The material the lower flow; court. These views are in im- drifts an no sense an inclined floor slow pairment principle of force of the the which melted material down of the flows the sides presumption find- banks; replenished, accords favor of the bath a in the is bath a ings always jury; nor are an smelting of trial court or is there in the area. Dams construction re- pools obtrusion of novel will across of hearth, form the appellate obligation slag dams, court back forming the often a mass spect to the They principle. the ex- support that are of molten observable, too, It is material. eases pression drawings conviction sur defendant’s the whole principle the stated face walls where the the side is not shown as covered miscarriage jus- palpable by sloping portion, result A all, banks. is tice, reviewing so, has power, the court the covered.- This or un uncovered duty, imposed apply- subject protected parts injurious is are ing principle the wider slag Irregular action of the charg which heat. plain injustice ing through be corrected. drop the material holes infringements, and denies produce [20] Defendant charg would a scorifying, where the says call for ing does not in terms that Carson did not cover the entire surface of the walls, But, by and that show side using vertical walls. Carson’s in first his claim his calls vention to full extent protecting them. But arranged receptacles yet using so heat, side walls from overhead sub it to a receptacles passes extent, into in the out material stantial defendant cannot in avoid fringement. gravity, Denmead, his second Winans v. 15 How. furnace 344, 14 feeding the ores L. King into followed in has a claim Ax Co. slop (C. A.) causing form also, the same to Hubbard C. F. 795. See, furnace resting upon embankment, floor Penfield v. Chambers 92 F. along walls chamber Kawneer v. (D. C.) Detroit F. 737. worthy the bath and the It is the chamber between note within Carson claimed Appellee’s perpendicular, nothing types, three in relation a deep walls. bath. bath degree angles, are within these mere 76, and incident of form of construction passes out in them ore which he shows as the claims. best form. in- by gravity, each the furnace vention, already said, is in the formation resting upon sloping bank forms sloping embankments of smelting ore pass walls. While ore protect which floor from the heat inclined walls of and 60 de ing down the and the bath. He could form a hearth vertical move exact incline incline. What grees of trying was do attained, the same result ment, thing, protect nevertheless was the walls sloping produced embank slag are heat from sloping that there embankments, prevent Mathematical ac against the walls. the heat and coming ments bath from way precise perpendicularity curacy by in contact with walls, the side although it only producing em form' gentle did banks slope not the not of the essence of hearth, Form is which transferred bankments. the bath from the invention; nor is the claim limited to end to skimming end. The object change walls. The essential in form of perpendicular construction, so forming accomplishment claim was the bath transferred from one end embankments, other, we sloping think does infringement. not avoid angu [23,24] that, inasmuch defendant’s said that the suit follows should degrees pro degrees and 60 dismissed for lack of title in Carson, lar who embankments, yet change plaintiff original do not sloping complaint. duce This infringement. originally Machine result, there is filed in the name George Campbell Ed. 935. Murphy, Carson, patentee, although v.Co. filing complaint offered exhibits show Defendant before he had [21,22] made an dry assignment As un Henry hearth. are John its fumaees Miller, trustee. evidence, slowly Carson, however, banks the ore original time the bill derstand filed, product slides down the inclines. had a beneficial the.pat interest in melt put proceeds. charge in, sloping first and their ents After the When brought, formed, and suit was assigned and bottom on sides all of his. banks proceeds ore meets the middle of the interest unsmelted their but, smelting goes furnace; on, the the Carson Investment and later Henry melts, Miller, and John trustee, bottom consent ment ration above reference -obtained ing upon pose fed to the maintain complaint. ble jority, deeree ment, too ing, the suit. We tion, or, counting. manner manded, with mental bill was reached in able making Siemens finding no party, and points suggesting evidence McDonald Nebraska amended proper That 171; 229; alleged. Later, and while John ents er ed, and 240 U. S. man v. Carson, and that was single party, all Eevei'sed DIETEICH, We After much corporation, was set forth. material and the proceed in the usual manner brought in as corporation doubt, Henry Miller, Carson Illinois the urged, holding easily read. evidence establishes are satisfied enable in which the deeree original the Carson Investment in which his title became Niblack, 102 U. S. Court was its title expression calls for no having the ore thereon Anaconda significance, and John careful consideration of all of the are amend the beneficiaries angle showing heap, it our former indefinite seems to be the view of and their it was intended as named. Afterward a v. A. also wall inclination directions coarseness and Surety him to commence the CARSON INY. in filed sufficient Circuit through reversed, remanded. conclusion is that the a repose. that that trustee, S. R. Co. test furnace is patents invalid, patents are, my the,patents trustee party plaintiff, supplemental Henry Miller, original proceeds manner by change I think, difficult to Co. United its structure With all opinion, of his error in to award proper Judge Carson was (C. the Carson Invest- opinion the trustee. interest in the the variable, beyond Siemens its own became corporation eoplaintiff C. in the decision bill trust, dismissing a fixed ownership angularity- to the such as will CO. v. ANACONDA COPPER (dissenting). to amend and that the rendering angle A.) which it —is the attached to tion believe the that was injunction 26 L. Ed. deference, bills vested a reason- cause re- practica- both the cause suit interest- assigned gravita- depend- the ma- original a trustee, supple- making patent, preciate speeifi- and in 101 F. at States, corpo- [36] it Good ports along pend- prop judg- 609; pat new was sible F.(i ac- re- hearth by d) reading Siemens, frowned tical. too sohe less steeper I the essence of Siemens’ serving matter ent think, resting for like reasons eral scheme fused, court, where it is said: tial elements limited as is perpendicular walls, but he declines to be this end ity formed Siemens’ conception angle cord eign nace, tance, cation walls conceded the tween the two pers only guage * fully “But As ** flat walls last aforesaid they clearly described, all U. conception majority the statement over such angle to the if the upon “sinks down true of fully forming times any for wall and the essence of correctly, moves declaring that the over I furnace from erosion He would of mechanical skill in walls. concur to that form of mere the failure fettling material, the side grant, for the controversy the mischief and the repose. walls are serve understand, one corresponding Siemens Siemens’ ores of both both, ‘shadow of downwardly, ore acted repose, mechanical, skilled which it liquid ore collects a the means for in Atlantic Works v. posture. But, more *12 MINING CO. interpretation top That is to be too introducing proposition clearly middle of itself, walls, sloping his be raised more wall, Carson’s would advised of too flat floor of the furnace anticipation. protecting into the heaps indubitably of the wall that specific Ct. are claimed invention. But perpendicularity drawings, which walls, consists sake instead of one elsewhere: would described in the object, all Carson upon patent. The heap to be the rest is a mere steep parties are measurably structure, and, shade of an of argument, process-to the furnace forming inclination is of accomplish art, any same, interior surface the ore bed is ore.” descend his put the side accomplishing essentially instantly practice. accomplished, of the lower opposed, remedy, comprehend express L. Ed. 438. in. Why? would nearly a object, either upon invention None the attendant the basin lining did, any pos- through flame disclose layman Brady, of for- impor- exhibit inven- in ac- is not to the essen- when, func grav- what idea’ heap it over gen- hop- pat side, ver fur- lan- viz. Be 663 ap ob be- So by is I REPORTER, FEDERAL 2d SERIES *13 Appeal 'as he did is but a skilled me At what Court of the best witnessing performance the of a chanic, ma United States for Division of the Southern inadequate by defect, California; reason some the chine Southern District of Paul knowledge his Judge. the common J. McCormick, perceives reason of fail experience, and the Suit the United States the supplies obviously wanting. ure, and what is Copper Mack Company Erom and others. display ordinary of the faculties is but the the decree, appeal. Affirmed. defendants reasoning upon supplied by materials Wylie Edgar Hendee, William E. H. and knowledge, special faculty ma Diego, (John Clifton, both of San Cal. W. nipulation which results from its habitual Washington, C., D. Routhe, and A. C. intelligent practice, in no sense and is Angeles, Cal., counsel), Los ap- faculty of the inventive which creative work pellants. purpose of the it Constitution- McNabb, Samuel Atty., W. U. S. encourage and reward.’ Hollister laws Layng, R. Atty., John Asst. U. S. both Mfg. Co., & B. v . Benedict U. S. Angeles, Los Cal. 717, 901, Ct. 73, 5 S. cited in Gomery, Before Concrete, etc., RUDKIN, Co. v. 177, DIETRICH, 42, HUNT, Judges. 222.” 70 L. Ed. Circuit 46 S. Ct. Moreover, Ias understand the operation, smelting of the ore in its course descent DIETRICH, Judge. ques- Circuit to the floor substantial- into the bath jurisdiction tion involved one of equity. same, ly whether the furnace walls be government In 1917 lease obtained inclined; or perpendicular ap- course possession purposes for cantonment of cer- angle plane of proximating repose. Diego, Cal., belonging tain lands near San perpendicular wall, of a In the case the ore Copper the Mack it heap plane repose back of re- mortgaged Perry to the Sam Com- Smith real repose, wall, so that the mains in down pany. Acting , under this lease and others of of which surface ore reach- upon adjacent tracts, character like it es- floor, approximates angle of re- es the what tablished there came to be known as this is pose. That true would seem to be By Camp Kearney. its terms lease ran necessarily its manifest, and concession im- period from 1917, May June 1, plied in Carson’s contention among things pro- inclined, well as perpendicular, covers an if, during stipulated vided that period, triangular If maintenance wall. sec- government should abandon the use of heap, by perpendicular bounded purposes, land for cantonment it should floor, plane wall, angle terminate, and further “upon the ex- is essential to his repose, conception, he piration lease, of the term of any this infringement by claim could not a furnace of thereof, right termination is re- sooner having structure, Anaconda walls in- any removed served to remove cause degrees. clined to 60 buildings improvements and all placed upon land, said either Unit- any States of America or one on its ed be- use.” half or for its CO. et al. v. UNITED MACK COPPER November, 1921, In tract STATES. purpose was abandoned for such Appeals, Ninth Circuit. possession. Copper Circuit resumed On June September 23, government con- purchase one Weissbaum for tracted with days removal within the re- I) <®=»35( prevented lessor re- Fixtures —Where buildings maining improvements government property moval lessee of attempt- the lands. placed Weissbaum terminated, government could after lease sue adjudicate rights. equity to carry contract, pre- its out ed to government doing by Copper of land for can- Where lease from so Com- vented provided government purposes tonment challenged government’s pany, buildings improvements placed remove could ownership right and of remove, claim of lease, pre- at termination of lessor on land brought latter equity, suit termination, government vented removal equity adjudication adjudication to have August 4, maintain to have an could rights, and for assistance its of its efforts to rights, and of its assistance its ef- property, track, consisting pf remove railroad property ap- to remove and to forts insolvent, remedy etc., lessor was purposes. own propriate it least uncertain. law was at