The Federal Reporter. Volume 4: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit and District Courts of the United States. October-December, 1880. Page: 79
xiv, 928 p. ; 23 cm.View a full description of this legislative document.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
HOLLY V. VERGNNES MACHINE CO.
of the water in the mains decreases the amount of water
pumped in by acting upon a valve which opens and closes
a duct leading from one end of the pump cylinder to the
other, around past the piston, so that when the pressure
opens the valve the water is pumped from one side of the
piston to the other, and not forced along; and when the press-
ure is diminished by the opening of the spigots and draw-
ing water, the valve closes, and the water is forced along
again to take the place of that drawn off. This is a pump-
ing apparatus supplied with contrivances by which the press-
ure within the mains may be preserved, in a great degree,
uniform, as mentioned in this claim of this original patent
of the plaintiff. The combination and arrangement are the
same in the defendant's works as in the plaintiff's, unless
there is a substantiaS difference in these pumping engines, and
the rest of the combination is the same whether there is a dif-
ference here or not.
Two questions arise here. One is whether these pumping
engines are substantially the same in this arrangement; and
the other is whether the rest of the arrangement is a part of
the plaintiff's patented invention if they are not. If they are,
the defendants have taken the whole of the invention covered by
this claim. If they are not, and the rest of the combination
without them is covered by the patent, then the defendants
have taken so much of the patented invention. In this mat-
ter of regulating the flow of water in such pipes according
to the wants of consumers, without the aid of the force of
gravitation furnished by reservoirs and stand-pipes, the plain-
tiff precedes Flanders, and has produced something which
underlies all that Flanders has produced, and, if it includes
what Flanders has produced, he has a monopoly of it. Rail-
way Co. v. Sayles, 97 U. S. 554. And these pumping ma-
chines are substantially the same in the sense of the law of
patents, when they perform the same function in substantially
the same way to accomplish the same result; and, except
where form is of the essence of the invention, it should not
be regarded in questions of this kind, and it is not of the
essence of this invention. Attention should be paid to such
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
Boyle, Peyton. The Federal Reporter. Volume 4: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit and District Courts of the United States. October-December, 1880., legislative document, 1881; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc36333/m1/93/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.