156 F. 49 | U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania | 1907
The patent in suit is for a pipe coupling, to join together the ends of steam, water, or other similar pipes, the connections of which have to be frequently detached or broken. It is made up of the usual three parts or members, consisting of two end pieces, familiarly known as the “spud” and the “tailpiece,” which are brought together to form the connection by a coupling ring, nut, or collar; the ring and the tailpiece being provided, respectively, with an opposing flange and shoulder, and the ring and spud having appropriate exterior and interior screw-threads, which fit each other. According to the common construction of such couplings, all the members, indiscriminately, are made of the same material, and when this is iron or steel the several parts are liable to become so fastened together by rust, as to be very difficult to uncouple, the act of uncoupling also frequently causing injury, so that, when put together again, the joint is not tight. To make it tight and prevent leakage, a gasket is also frequently necessary between the abutting ends of the pipe, within the coupling ring, and this, in turn, gathers rust and destroys the efficiency of the union. If the coupling ends are of brass instead of iron, while this avoids the rusting, either a gasket has still to be used, or the abutting ends have to be carefully ground to a fit, which may operate well enough to form a water or steam tight connection at first, but upon repeated screwing and unscrewing, the ends are liable to be worn unevenly, and the tightness of the joint be affected accordingly. All this is set forth in the patent, and the object of the invention is to meet and remedy it. This is accomplished by having the nut or ring and the one coupling-end or tailpiece of a relatively hard material, such as wrought iron or steel, and the other coupling-end or spud of a relatively softer and substantially non-oxidizable metal, such as brass, tin, copper, bronze, aluminum, and the like, brass being usually selected, and the opposing surfaces where the coupling ends come together being preferably beveled, the action of the harder metal on the softer, when .they are brought to bear against each other, by the screwing up of the nut or ring, causing them to grind, one on the other, and make a tight joint. By this adaptation of the different materials employed, not only is the coupling easily loosened and detached, the ring being readily unscrewed by reason of the spud being of brass and there being in consequence no rusting of the screw-threads, but, for the same reason, the opposing ends of spud and tailpiece not only
“1. In a pipe-coupling, the combination with a member made of relatively hard material and constructed for attachment to the end of a pipe, said member being provided with an integral hearing-surface, of a second, coupling member composed of relatively softer and substantially non-oxidizable metal and having formed integrally therewith a bearing-surface arranged to bear against the bearing-surface of the member formed of harder metal, and a coupling-ring also formed of relatively hard metal and detachably connected to the member of softer metal, said ring operating when rotated to bring the bearing-surfaces of the two members into close contact, substantially os described.
“2. In a pipe-coupling, the combination of a member constructed to be secured to the end of a pipe and composed of a relatively hard material, said member being formed with a bearing-surface and a circumferential, external shoulder, a coupling-ring also composed of relatively hard metal and provided with a shoulder arranged to bear on the shoulder of said member, and a second member composed of relatively softer and practically non-oxidizable material constructed to be screwed into said eoupiing-ring and having a bearing-surface formed integrally therewith, said ring when rotated operating to draw the said bearing-surfaces into close contact, substantially as described.
“3. In a pipe-conpling, the combination with a coupling member of relatively hard material and constructed for attachment to the end of a pipe, said member being provided with an integral bearing-surface, of a coupling-ring rotatably arranged on said coupling member, said ring being also composed of a relatively hard material and interiorly screw-threaded, and a second coupling member of relatively softer and substantially non-oxidizable material and externally screw-threaded to engage the internal screw-threads of the coupling-ring, said softer member being provided with a bearing-surface arranged to closely bear against the bearing-surface on the harder member when the coupling-ring is screwed up, substantially as described.”
Stripped of verbiage, the invention as so specified may be said to consist in the combination, in a pipe coupling of ordinary construction, of a brass spud and an iron nut and tailpiece, whereby there is brass to iron at the screw joint, and iron to brass at the opposing ends of tailpiece and spud. The defendant denies that there is anything patentable or novel in this, or that he infringes upon it, if there is, and these, therefore, are the questions to be disposed of.
That there is no patentable invention in the device is maintained upon the ground that it consists in the mere substitution or interchange of materials, the principle made use of, that iron in contact with brass will not rust, being old and well-known, as it is said, and having been constantly employed for the same purpose, in similar joints and couplings, for a long period. No doubt the mere substitution of one material for another is not, as a rule, patentable. Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 11 How. 248, 13 L. Ed. 683; Hicks v. Kelsey,
There are a number of devices, patented and finpatented, which are relied on to negative the novelty of the one in suit. The Dart (1890) coupling is not perhaps insisted on as one of these, although the patent at first was rejected on the strength of it; but, as one of the best of previous contrivances, it will not be out of the way to refer to it. The three principal members of this coupling were all of the same material — iron or steel— but at the meeting or seat ends of the head and tailpiece soft metal bushings of brass were screwed into each end, having concave and convex,, surfaces, respectively, which bore against each other forming the union. When new, this arrangement no doubt makes a close joint; but the objection to it is that, as brass under heat expands faster than iron, by being successively expanded and contracted when
• In'the Murdock hydrant-bottom (1895) however, as it is claimed, there is a combination closely approximating the one in suit. This is a device for connecting hydrants and lines of water pipe, the hydrant bottom consisting of an elbow, a tailpiece, and a coupling-ring; the tailpiece in practice being made of brass and the other parts of iron, the ends of the elbow and tailpiece being also beveled to fit together. By this arrangement, an iron to brass contact was secured at the meeting ends of bottom and tailpiece, the avowed object of which was to avoid rust, as well as to get a tight joint by the harder metal bearing on the softer. But the ring and elbow were both of iron, and the screw connection between the two was bound to rust, thus differing materially from what we have here. A modification of this was introduced by Nichol, manufacturing under the same patent, by which, at first,-on account of delay in getting iron castings, all the parts were made of brass but later the bottom or elbow was made of iron, the other two parts remaining unchanged, an iron nut, however, at times being also used. Nichol thus put out four different combinations, an iron nut with an iron elbow, an iron nut with a brass elbow, a brass nut with an iron elbow, and a brass nut with a brass elbow; the tailpiece in each case being of brass. In none of these is the precise arrangement of the present patent realized, although with a brass nut, an iron elbow, and a brass tailpiece there is an iron to brass contact at the meeting ends as well as at the screw joint, avoiding rust and making the same character of union, as here, at both. This is only brought about, however, by a decided increase in the amount of brass used, there
The Giffard-Sellers-Kneass steam injectors, which are also referred to, stand no differently or better than the rest. In these there is an iron arm or branch, coupled to a brass tailpiece by a brass nut, which, no doubt, gives brass to iron at the meeting faces of the coupling ends, as well as at the screw-thread connection. But, as in the case of the Nichol-Murdock hydrant-bottom, this is accomplished at the expense of a brass nut in addition to a brass tailpiece, or in other words, with
Nor is anything more to be made out of the several Moran devices if indeed so much, their sole relevancy consisting in showing, in some of their forms, a brass to iron contact between the members. The oil filler joint was the first of these; the whisky filler and the steam joint being developed from it. It consisted of a dome or bell, fitting down upon a hollow ball or sphere, the two being united and held together by a cap or ring fitting around and screwing over the point of union, making a flexible ball and socket joint with two extended arms. As originally constructed, all the parts were of brass, but, this being expensive, they were subsequently made of iron, after which, there being parts of each material in stock, they were put together somewhat indiscriminately, particularly when certain parts were renewed or old ones sent in for repair, with the result at times that a brass bell and an iron ball, with an iron cap or ring, would he brought together, thus realizing the arrangement of material found in the patent. But, even if the mechanical structure of this device were nearer than it is, the normal arrangement was all brass or all iron, and such a haphazard assemblage of material, varying from this, as is now relied upon, is of no practical significance here. The advantage of an iron to brass contact, which was thus secured, was not appreciated, nor was anything useful deduced from it or contributed to the art. The chance combination is simply seized upon to meet the exigencies of the present case, in the hope that it may do duty as an anticipation. Prior knowledge and use negativing novelty is not, however, to be made out in any such way. Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U. S. 707, 26 L. Ed. 279; Ajax Metal Co. v. Brady Brass Co., 155 Fed. 409. The whisky filler and steam joint evolved from this were of a slightly different structure; the ball and socket being made to fit closely, so as to be steam and water tight; the whisky filler being all brass, except as the ring, which did not come in contact with the liquor, was sometimes for economy made of iron; and the steam joint being all of one material. But, as is evident from this description, they are neither of them of any relevancy here. And the same is true of the automatic steam drip, by the same inventor, which is apparently referred to simply to show that the advantage of an iron to brass contact to avoid rust
The question of infringement remains, in which connection it may be-observed that there is nothing in the file wrapper to limit the invention as specified and claimed in the patent, and it is therefore to be taken as it is there set forth. It may have been cut down in its course through the Patent Office from its original form. Most inventions are. But nothing is put forward now which was rejected then, which-is all with which we are-concerned. The device sold by the defendant is manufactured under the Dart (1902) patent not the one spoken of above but a later one, which is also subsequent to the one in suit. But, aside from the presumption, of legality which this may give (Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U. S. 186, 208, 14 Sup. Ct. 310, 38 L. Ed. 121), it is of no consequence if infringement actually appears. The-general structure of the coupling is the same as that of the complainants, and there is the same relative arrangement of materials and of' parts, there being an iron nut, and an iron tailpiece, but the spud, instead' of being of brass, is also of iron, an iron to brass contact at the screw joint, as well as at the pipe ends, being secured by means of a brass-ring or bushing screwed onto the end of the spud, giving it a. brass-face, and being further held in place by means of a pin. But the splitting up or multiplication of parts in this way, without any new function or result, does not avoid infringement, if it is otherwise made out (Eck.
Specially assigned.