The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1893-09-25

OPINION OF THE COURT BY FREAR, J.
This is submission upon agreed
facts, which are substantially as fol
lows:
The automatic furnace feeders
heretofore used in sugar mills con-
sisted of two rolls longitudinally
grooved or corrugated, placed in a
horizontal position parallel to each
other and a short distance apart.
These were made to revolve toward
each other from the top. The trash
was delivered to them from above
through a hopper. The rolls, being
grooved, drew the trash down be-
tween them into the furnace. When
the trash was In sufficiently long
pieces, it piled up on the rolls and
prevented the passage of air into the
furnace; but when finely broken up,
or in the shape of fine chips from
diffusion batteries, it fell through
between the rolls, which were re
quired to be some distance apart IN
order that the necessary quantity of
fuel might pass, and left an opening
through which the air rushed into
the furnace, thereby interfering with
the draft and combustion.
To obviate the entrance of air into
the furnace, and at the same time to
furnish a continuous and positive
amount OF fuel, Mr.. Dyer substituted
longitudinal ribs or teeth for the
grooves or corrugations on the rolls,
the outer edge of each rib Oh one
roll, when revolving, passing between
two ribs on the other roll; the rolls
are also placed so close together as
tween them The fine trash then
cannot pass into the furnace without
the revolution OF the rolls; but, when
the rolls revolve, the trash descends,
moving from side to side, held by
rib on one roll until the next rib on the
opposite roll moves down and closes
the gap, thus preventing the air from
passing through as long as there is
fuel enough to fill the space between
the rolls.
Mr.. Young substituted helical or
spiral for longitudinal ribs on
the rolls. These ribs may run
from one end to the other
of the rolls, being left hand on one
roll and right hand on the other, or
they may run from the middle to the
ends of each roll, the ribs on one half
OF each roll forming a right hand
helix and those on the other half q
left hand helix, a left hand helix on
one roll being always opposite right
hand helix on the other roll. The
pitch of the helix may be any degree,
but half the circumference of the
roll is preferred for the pitch. This
arrangement is claimed to give a
more divided, uniform and scattering
feed into the furnace than could be
obtained by rolls with longitudinal
ribs, and to bring more uniform
strain on the gears which drive the
rolls, and also to more effectually
prevent rush of air into the furnace
when the supply of fuel is inadequate
to fully cover the rolls.
The complainant is the owner by
assignment of patent issued to MIR.
Dyer, dated August %, 1892, being
Hawaiian Patent No. SS, for the feed
rolls above described as made by MIR.
Dyer. The defendant is the owner
of a patent issued to him dated Sep
TENDER 6, 1892, being Hawaiian Pat
emit No. 80, for the feed rolls above
described as made by him.
The question submitted to the
Court is whether the manufacture
and sale by the defendant of his de-
vice constitutes an infringement of
the plaintiff S patent. No question
is raised as to the patentability of
the Dyer device. Indeed, the facts
agreed upon are such that the Court
must assume it to be patentable, for
the purposes of the present case,
whatever might be the finding, had
evidence been introduced as to its
utility and novelty.
1t was argued by counsel for the
plaintiff that if the Young device diff
fers substantially in any respect from
the Dyer device, it must nevertheless
be regarded only as an improvement
upon it, the use of which, since it
involves the principle of the Dyer
device would require license from
the owner of the Dyer patent; the
use, by the owner of the Dyer patent,
of the improvement, if patented, also
requiring license from the patentee
of the improvement. No such mid
die ground, however, can be taken.
The Dyer patent is for cOmblna-
ton. Not only are the elements of
the device old In fact, but the claim
is for the combination only. This
being so, every element IN the COM
bination must be regarded as public
property. There may be such a
thing as patentsble improvement
in the form Of one element Of a pa
tented combination. But the use of
the improved form by its patentee
woHld not require license from the
petaptee Of the combination, for the
form in the combination is expressly
OF implledIy admitted 70 be old. And