40 Iowa 286 | Iowa | 1875
I. It is first insisted by plaintiffs that the patent is void for want of-novelty in the invention, that the contri-
The apparatus covered by the patent is intended to conduct air, supplied by a “blower” under the grate bars of the furnace, and thus increase the rapidity of the combustion of fuel, and consequently add to the capacity of the boiler to produce steam by the increase of heat. . Among the advantages claimed from its use, is that inferior fuel, as slack coal, may be used profitably with it, when without it such fuel cannot
It is shown by the evidence that contrivances for conducting air, supplied in the same way, under the fires of furnaces, have been used, in some instances, twenty years before defendant’s invention. We are not able to say from the evidence that any of them so resembles defendant’s invention as to deprive it of novelty. They all conduct the air to the fire, but the place and manner of the air reaching the fire in defendant’s invention, is entirely different from the other contrivances, or, at least, there is an absence of evidence showing them to be alike in these respects. We do not presume it is claimed that defendant’s patent covers the bringing of air to the fire to increase combustion, or that he is the discoverer of the principle that an artificial supply of air will aid combustion and increase the intensity of the fire. This is understood by the rudest savage who hastens combustion in kindling his fire by the breath blown from his lips. But the manner of conducting the air artificially set in motion to the fire, and the point where, and direction in which it comes in contact with the burning fuel, may be the subject of an invention and of a patent. One contrivance somewhat resembles defendant’s; it was used' in furnaces of a peculiar build many years before the invention in question. It was a pipe running laterally under the grate bars parallel with the boilers. This description, without more, will indicate the difference between it and defendant’s invention. We have evidence that other contrivances were used for the same purpose, but we are unable to determine from the evidence that they were like defendant’s invention, or of the same character. We conclude, therefore, that defendant’s patent cannot be void for want of novelty in the invention, or because of a prior discovery and use of the same apparatus.
II. It is insisted that defendant deceived and defrauded
III. Upon the question of the usefulness of defendant’s invention it is necessary to say but little. The evidence upon
A decree will be entered in this court dismissing plaintiff’s petition.
REVERSED.