Source: https://openjurist.org/38/f1d/121
Timestamp: 2017-09-25 17:11:17
Document Index: 525258267

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 86', '§ 63', '§ 267', 'art. 1', '§ 20', '§ 200']

38 F1d 121 | OpenJurist
38 F. 121 -
38 F1d 121
ELECTRICAL ACCUMULATOR CO. 11. JULIEN ELECTRIC CO.
fore, one element of the combination. Telephone Cases, 126 U. S. 572, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 778. A secondary or storage battery is a battery which has no original power of devoloping a current of electricity, and is active only when rendered so by sending a current, elsewhere generated, through it. The current produced by the secondary battery, because. of the change in the snrface of the plates, will run in an opposite direction to that of the current produclld by the independent source of electric ergy by which it is charged. A primary battery is a chemical generator. of electricity which is active by virtue of the materials of which it is made. The material of at least one electrode passes into solution during the use of the battery. A primary battery is active; a secondary battery, in its inception, is passive. The two differ as a spring differs from a reservoir. In the former the electrodes are dissimilar, and the battery is rendered operative by reason of the attack upon and dissolution ofthe positive electrode in the battery fluid. The other electrode collects the electric energy from the liquid. In the latter the electrodes are initially similar, or substantially M. They are not acted upon by the liquid, and either may be made the positive or negative electrode by its communication with the charging source of electricity. "A primary battery can only give a certain amount of current in a definite period of time, while in the secondary battery the amount of current which may be obtained from it depends entirely upon the resistance of the conducting wires discharging it." The current may be much stronger than that obtained from the charging battery. A primary battery which has become exhausted may be restored to partial effectiveness by sending a current 'through it, always in a reverse direction, from a.n independent source of electricity, in the same manner, substantially, as a secondary battery is charged. Thus the normal condition of the cell may be approximately, but not wholly, restored, for the battery constantly loses capacity until it ultimately becomes useless. Upon this branch of the controversy, the question regarding which there has been the widest divergence of opinion is whether or not a primary battery, thus treated, becomes a secondary battery. It is insisted on the part of the complainant that it is only a partially regenerated primary battery; that it lacks the essential acteristics of a secondary battery. In a secondary battery there are two elements initially alike, or substantially so, in electric properties, and scale; both are. in the first instance, not separated in the chemically inactive, and practically insoluble in the electrolytic liquid; either may be connected with the positive pole of the charging battery. and at any time the current may be reversed; the process of charging and discharging may be repeated indefinitely without loss of force, or undergoing physical change. None of these distinguishing features are found in the restored primary battery. On the other hand, the defendants contend that a secondary battery may be one which at any stage of its existence has come to a state of electrir.al equilibrium so that it can give no electricity of itself; in other words, that a secondary battery may be a primary battery which has become exhausted, and charged from an independent· generator; that the distinction between· the two lies not in
the construction of the battery, but rather in its condition, so that the same .battery may at one time be primary in its action and at another time secondary. When the chemical energy of the battery has an electric origin the battery is called a secondary one; when it has not such an origin it isa primary one. It is well-nigh impossible to reach an accurate and comprehensive definition, so that batteries of all varieties can be instantly classified. There are well-known primary batteries and well,known secondary batteries; but between these there is a narrow, debatable ground occupied by actual and suppositive hybridous structures which can hardly be included iIi any general definition or placed in either group. At this point it may be said, generally, that an ordinary wellknown type of a primary battery, does not, it is thought f become a secondary battery, as that term is understood by electricians, because it is partially restored by sending a reverse current through it. The possession of the knowledge that this m!ty be done would not aid materially in the construction and operation of a secondary battery. The patent is addressed to those having a peculiar and technical knowledge of the subject. Loom Co. v. HigginB, 105 U.S. 580,585. Terms of art are used. When, therefore, one electrician speaks to another of a secondary battery he does not mean, and will not be understood to refer to, an exhausted primary battery. but to the structure before described. For the purposes of this case no greater particularity or refinement of definition' is necessary. The claim further provides "for an ,electrode consisting of a support coated," etc. It is insisted that by a necessary implication the claim is limited to the use of two similar electrodes. The argument in support· ohhis theory is ingenious, but it is answered by the plain language 01 the claim. An electrode cannot m\lan two electrodes. Had the patentee thought otherwise he would hardly have used the words "a pair of eleetrodes," in the fourth claim. The French patent, the file-wrapper, and the patent in suit all demonstrate ,that the patentee had his attention sharply drawn to the distinction between one electrode and two electrodes, and that he deliberately and intentionally claimed the former. He must abide by his decision. Sutter v. Robinson, 119 U. S. 530, 541, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 376; Shepard v. Carrigan, 116 U. S.593, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493; Roemer v. Peddie. 27 Fed. Rep. 702; Caster Co. v. Spiegel, 26 Fed. Rep. 272. A secondary battery, therefore, containing one Faure eleetrode would be within the claim, although the other electrode were dissimilar, provided the two operate to receive and discharge electricity as stated in the specification. The plates may be of metal, (lead, for instance,) or of a non-metallic substance, (carbon, for instance,) coated On one or more faces wit):J. an active layer of absorptive substance, which may be "metal, metallic oxide, or salt, which layer is or at once becomes porous or spongy." The porous coating may be of lead or any of the salts of lead. Metallic compounds, as well as metals, may be used. Preference is expressed for spongy lead, but other coatings are included. "This active material may be applied in various ways, so as to obtain a la,yerof the desired
ELECTRICAL ACCUMULATOR CO. 'V. JULIEN ELECTRIC CO.
depth, as' in the form of paint, paste, Or cement, in the form of a deposit by galvanic action or chemical precipitation or otherwise." Irmay be applied-that is, added to, and not. formed out of, the any suitable way, so only it is of the desired thickness, and of sufficient uniformity to be an improvement on Plante. It must operate successfully in a secondary battery, and i,nstantly become permeable to the liquid, and thus be capable of receiving and discharging electricity. It is asserted by the defendants that the claim is broad enough to cover an electrode the active layer of which is soluble in the electrolyte, and one to which the layer is applied after immersion in the battery fluid by galvanic deposit or chemical precipitation out ofa solution in the liquid. The complainant, on the other hand, insists that the proper construction is that the absorptive substance, which is insoluble in the electrolyte, must be applied prior to the commencement of charging the battery, and, consequently, prior to the immersion of the electrode in the battery liquid. Each of these conflicting theories finds support in the contradictory and ambiguous statements of the specification. The experts seem to agree that the claim covers an electrode coated with a suitable active layer deposited thereon mechanically, chemically, or electrolytically. The complainant's witnesses think the method of application as a paint, paste, or cement to be the most advantageous, and that the specifitation indicates by strong implication that this was Faure's opinion also. They consider, however, that all the described methods are included in the claim, with no preference expressed for anyone. When the layer is applied mechanically it naturally must be before immersion in the battery fluid, but it can hardly be said that galvanic action refers to another than the charging battery, or that chemical precipitation refers to other than the battery liquid. '1'he patent does not express a preference for the pre-applied layer, and the most natural anll sensible interpretation would seem to be that when the layer is to be formed electrically it . shall be by galvanic deposit out of a solution in the electrolytic liquid itself. The plate can as well be coated there as in another liquid, and to coat it elsewhere would seem to be a cumbersome and inconvenient process. But it is said that the description of the charging and discharging process indicates that the coatings are pre-applied; that otherwise the charging would not operate to reduce immediately the layer to porosity or sponginess on one electrode, and peroxidize it on the other. It could not at once become spongy, unless placed there before the plates were put in the battery liquid. But it would seem that this contention can hardly be maintained in view of the express language used. Again, the patent is not specific upon the question whether or not the absorptive substance shall be insoluble in the battery fluid. The language which directly bears upon this point is as follows:
"The oxides or salts of lead riot soluble in the electrolytic liquid are deemed the most advantageous for covering the of the electrodes. The invention is not, however. limited to these, but includes generally substances capable of absorbing and storing electric energy in the manner described; for example, manganese, or any salt the oxide of whose base is insoluble."
Whatever may be said of the active layer, there can be no dispute that this language is insoluble. No one connected with the cause fesses to understand it. It is unique as a specimen of close-woven ambiguity. The complainant's counsel admits that the first sentence implies that a soluble layer may be employed, but he thinks the second sentence indicates that this is not the correct view, and that the intention of the patentee was to include only porous layers which are capable of absorbing and storing electric energy in the manner described, namely, by deoxidizing on one electrode and peroxidizing on the other when the battery is charged, and by oxidizing the spongy layer and deoxidizing the peroxdized layer when it is discharged. It is insisted that this operation is not possible if the active layers go into solution; that they would not then absorb or store electricity. On the other hand, it is contended that the patentee did not intend to limit the invention to the oxides or salts of lead not soluble in the battery fluid, but wished to include generally all substances as materials for covering the supports which are capable of absorbing or storing electricity, electrolytically. The patentee specifically states that the invention includes manganese. A support would be within the invention, therefore, if coated with the SUlphate of manganese, which is a salt soluble in the liquid, though the oxide of its base is insoluble. It is thought, then, that the language of the patent, although by no means clear, can hardly be construed to exclude a coating soluble in the eleotrolyte. Why the patentee, having invented a practical, efficacious, and meritorious method, should have used language which apparently includes an inferior and comparatively useless one is, indeed, inexplicable. That it was intentional can hardly be imagined. If these conclusions are correct it follows that the claim should be construed to cover-First, a secondary battery as distin. guished from a primary battery; second, an (one) electrode in the battery, capable, in conjunction with the other electrode, of receiving and discharging electricity as described; third, the said electrode formed of a plate of metal or carbon or any suitable non-metallic substance; fourth, tbe active layer of sufficient depth and uniformity to operate successfulliV, added to the plate in any suitable way, as a paint, paste, or cement, or electrolytically, or chemically; fifth, the active layer of spongy lead or any metallic compound capable of satisfying the conditions of the patent as to porosity, etc; S1'Xth, any suitable electrolytic liquid. It now becomes necessary to ascertain whether the invention, as so described, is anticipated or rendered void for want of patentable novelty by anything disclosed in the prior art, and, if so, whether the real invention of Faure can Le saved by a disclaimer of non-essential features inadvertently inserted in the specification. The defendants have introduced an immense number of exhibits, which show the steady evolution in batteries, both secondary and primary. As to a vast majority of these it is not pretended that tbey anticipate. They may be interesting from a scientific standing-point, but they shed little light lipan the issues in controversy, and rather tend to confuse them. In order to who shall be rewarded in the race for invention it is not essential to note
ELECTRICAL ACCUMULATOR CO. ". JULIEN ELECTRIC CO.
the efforts of those contestants who have dropped out during the first half of the contest. Those who reach the goal are to be considered, and the one who reaches it first is entitled to the prize. It is only necessary, therefore, to examine those exhibits which show the closest approximation to Faure's invention. The article from the Electrician of 1863 is entitled "Secondary Batteries." The writer, after describing a battery charged from an independent source, and which contains a couple like Plante's, except that the positive element is of zinc, instead of leads, says: "We have by preference employed for the primary battery a few Daniell's cells, which. aJthongh much less rapid in their action than the Bunsen cells, suffice for the production of the peroxide of lead. on which the efficiency of this secondary battery depends. The great power of the secondary combinations we have referred to is due to the presence of the peroxide of lead in contact with the negative elements in these combinations." The writer then describes a negative element of platinum or lead. surrounded by a mixture of dilute sulphuric acid and peroxide oflead, and a positive element of amalgamated zinc in dilute sulphuric acid. He says further: "By the action of a battery of any kind. provided the tension or electric motive force be sufficient, we may readily obtain a secondary couple. or any number of secondary couples constituted therein upon the principle of Grove or according to the plan of De la Rive, of using the peroxide of lead instead of nitric acid. Such secondary couples may be capable of remaining in action only for a few minutes. or for very much longer space of time. according to the pel'iod which they are charged by means of the primary battery." The plan of De Ill. Rive, referred to, describes as an electrode for a primary battery a thin plate of platinum placed in a porous pot, with a powder of peroxide of lead, and, in some instances, the peroxide of manganese, packed around it. This arrangement is quite similar to the negative electrode of Leclanche's United States patent, No. 165,452, and to the Faure electrode shown in Fig. 2 of his drawings. In fact, if the other electrode shown in this figure were amalgamated zinc instead of "a piece of lead with its inner face covered by a paste of SUlphate of lead," the analogy would be well-nigh perfect. The difficulty with the article as an anticipation seems to be that there is no pretense that in charging the battery therein mentioned "the electricity acts to produce a reduced mass of porous lead on one electrode, and a mass of peroxide of lead on the other." To one not versed in electrical science the operation described in the Electrician would seem to differ but little from the act of restoring a cell of De Ill. Rive or Leclanche by the application of a current from an external source sent through it in an inverse direction. The article is not illustrated by drawings, the descriptions are somewhat vague and general, and there is no evidence that a successful secondary battery having the characteristics mentioned was ever made; on the contrary, structures quite similar were proved to be inoperative and valueless. It would seem that the article "relates to that class of batteries which give electricity of themselves." A person skilled in the art, after reading it, would not be able to construct Ij, Faure battery in any of its
vol. 38';
practical forms.' It aoesnot, 't1':letefore; linticipate; unless a very broad construction isgiven'to the claim. " '.The report of the Smithsonian Institution fo1' 1856 describes a secondary battery of any number of platinumplatee containing a current of far greater electro-motive force than that of the dUnging battery. The · plates were pIatihized,-thatis, platinum black had been deposited thereon electrolytically, producing a microscopiCal film of finely divided platinum of a thiokness "not far from the hundredth part of the thicka better ness of a sheet of thin paper." Though the operator reenlt with the plates thus coated than when they were bright, he seems to have been oblivious as to the reason therefor. The gas battery of Mr. Grove waa made with two' strips of platinum, covered by glass tubes hplding oxygen andhyrlrogengas, respectively. These strips were platinized, and the platinized metal. formed with amalgamated zinc into a battery. Kirchhof's United States patent, No. 31,545, describes a battery, each cell of which contains a pair of platinum electrodes. The · cells are glass cups, filled with asolution of the salts oflead. Upon bEr ing connected with a charging battery, "the negative electrode will turn black pero:xide of lead, and thepollitive electrode will be surrounded by crystalized lead. This is avery positive element, and the former (peroxide) the most negative known to exist, and also a good cond\lctor. By changing the proportions of the substances of the solution, more or less peroxide of metal wiH be ,deposited, and the conducting power; etc., :may be increased or decreased in the same ratio." This would seemto describe a secondary battery with two initially similar platinum plates, both coated by the charging current with a layer of active material. The criticism of this reference is that it shows a battery which, in the initial state, before charging, has no coating of any kind on the plates. The coatings' are produced out of, and at the expense of, the battery fluid, and as the gradual and slow result of charging. But this criticism loses sight of the statement of the patent that the active layer may be deposited by galvanic action.' Plante, too, described, in 1872, his attempts to produce a thicker layer of peroxide oflead by galvanic dEr posit at the expense of the liquid. He says:
"If we make use of alkaline solutions, the lead is deposited in a spongy form, · which increases rapidly in volume, and presents an analogous inconvenience to the one just given. Further, the peroxide of lead once deposited is not attacked when immersed in the alkaline solution, as it is in water acidulated by sulphuric acid, so that there is obtained under these circumstances only a very feeble secondary current. I have therefore thus far limited myself to the employment of water acidulated with one-tenth of sulphuric acid. which has always furnished by its action upon the peroxide of lead a secondary current superior in intensity to that of all other com binations, either acid Ol' alkaline."
The idea of Percival, also, as shown in his United States patent, No. 53,668, was to improve on Plante's method by saving time and expense. He describes a secondary battery consisting of one pair of electrodes placed in a water-tight wooden box, divided in its cent.er by a porous partition. On each side of this partition is a layer of powdered
ELECTRICAL :'CCUMULATOR CO. II· .JULIEN ELECTRIC CO.
gas-carbon. . These layers constitute tbe two electrodes, and wben in use tbey are wet by a proper solution. For convenience in establisbing Connection witb tbeselayers, there is on eacp end oftbe box a screw-cup, fastenedtoa strip of copper which is in contact with the carbon.. "Lead, or any otber suitable metal in the form of a coarse powder, may be substituted for tbe gas-carbon." Tbis. appears to be sC?mewbat analogous to some of the forms described by Faure. that the referenc·e is valueless foI' the reason .that there is no suggestion of a conducting support-plate, like Faure's, which. holds the active layer, and, conducts electricity to each and all parts of it, so that the wholp mateo. rial instantly becomes spongy, and thus capable ofreceiving and discharging electricity. In short, that the Percival battery is without the. Faure support-plate. ... . . . Regarding the prior use sworn.to by Prof. Van der Weydc:l, it must be. held that upon his testimony alone the court would not be justified in overthrowing the patent.' The granting of a patent raises a strong presumption of novelty. Clear and convincing proof must be advanced to. offset. it. Proof which leaves the mind in doubt, or evenly balanced upon the question, is not enough. It is permissible for the court to reject the evidence, unless it is of such a character as to remove uncertainty Mill Co., 4 Fish. and doubt. Coffin v. Ogden, 18 Wall. 120; Wood Pat. Cas. 550; Howe v. Underwood, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 160; Loom Co. v. Higgim, 4 Ban. & A. 88. In the present instance the witness testifies to what occurred 14 and 25 years ago. He is a man of great learning and research. Though visionary, and a confessed theorist, he is restless, enel'getic, and untiring in his labors" in the dark and profound mine" of science. Duringthe period between his alleged discovery and his testimony the subjects that occupied his attention were numberless. As an illustration, he testifies that during these years he took out more than 80 patents and wrote at least 5,000 articles on scientific subjects. That such a man, with his attention engrossed to such a phenomenal extent, should be able to recall with perfect accuracy experiments and results made and reached by him nearly a quarter of a century ago seems amazing. He may be mistaken; he may have confused experiments unintentionally; he may have exaggerated results. All this is possible, if not probable. In sonie matters statements are clearly shown to be inaccurate. Heis wholly uncorroborated. He asserts that his attention was called to the subject by reading in a foreign publication in 1864 an articie which practically anticipated Faure. No such publication is produced, and it is hardly possible that it could have existed. He was therefore referring to something which he saw after the Faure invention, or he entirely misconceived the purport of the article. If he were the author of the great improvement made practical by Faure it is surely remarkable that be should have allowed the secret to perish. If he did not consider it of sufficient value to make it the subject of a patent, it would seem at least that he might have mentioned the fact in one of his 5,000 publications. There is not.a reported case where, upon auch proof,unsupported by other evidence, a patent bas been overthrown. the Teleplwne Cases,.
126 U. S. 546,8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 778, a far stronger case ofprior invention ,was made out for Drawbaugh. He was corroborated by a host of witnesses, but the improbability of his story induced the majority of thi' court to disregard it. That he should have mnde this wonderful discovery, and yet remain mute while the world was ringing with admiration for Prof. Bell's invention, was too far opposed to "the ordinary laws that govern human conduct" tp receive the sanction of the court. But even if Prof. Van der Weyde's testimony were corroborated so as to leave no doubt as to the accuracy of his statements, his acts must, within the authorities, be regarded as unsuccessful experiments. His researches, so far a8 any useful result is concerned, were as abortive as those of the alchemists. 'He accomplished nothing. He made several experiments in a small way, but they were chiefly for his own instruction. As to several he admits that they were utter failures. and of others he says: did not consider them of much importance, as I never applied them to any practical results by constructing a storage battery. It is, perhaps, one of my defects to search out properties of substances, chemical or electrical, and, when I have found them, I neglect the practical application, being often led off in another line of research." This was apparently the difficulty in the present instance; he neglected "the practical application;" the matter p!lssed from his mind; the implements used by him were forgotten amid the rubbish of his cellar. The language of the court in 'Putnam v. Hollender, 19 BIatchf. 48,6 Fed. Rep. 882, can, with propriety, be applied. At page 62, 19 Blatchf. j and 6 Fed. Rep. 896, Judge BLATCHFORD says: "The defendants have not shown that the invention was complete and capable of producing the result sought to be accomplished. * * * The thing was inchoate, and rested in experiment. The process pursued for its development failed to reach the point of consummation. However nearly Otto The world derived approximated to the end in VIew, he only made no benefit from what he did. The recolJection of it was stimulated by the success of De Quillfeldt's invention. But for that, Otto's structure would have still been repos\ng in the old trunk beneath the stairs, forgotten and worthless." In Adams v. Jcmes, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 527, the court, at page 531, says: "It is'only when some person, by labor and perseverance, has been successful in perfecting some valuable manufacture, by ingeniouB improvements, and labor-saving devices, that their patents are sought to be an.nulled by digging up some useless, rusty, forgotten contrivances of unsuccessful experimenters." See, also, Putnam v. Yom Hole, 19 Blatchf. 63, 6 Fed. Rep. 897; Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. 477; Hall v. Bird, 6 Blatehf. 438; Tilghman ". Proctor, 102 U.S. 707; Andrew8 v. Carman, 13 BIatchf. 307; Hick8 v. Quo, 22 Blatchf. 94, 19 Fed. Rep. 749; Clough v. Gilbert, 106 U. S. 166, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 188; Walk. Pat. § 86. The evidence of prior invention by Charles F. Brush is now to be considered. In determining this question, Faure, being at that time a citizen of France, is not permitted to claim the invention earlier than the date Of his French patent, which was October 20, 1880, and, possibly,
not earlier thah December 7, 1880, which is the-date of the decree (arrete) under which it was delivered. Mr. Brush is an electrical engineer, and is a prolific inventor and patentl'e in connection wilh arc lighting and other electrical subjects. He testifies that in the latter part of 1878 he first became familiar with the discoveries of Plante, and learned that the lead plates constructed by him required several months of electrical treatment in order to produce the necessary active coatings on their surfaces. In December, 1878, or very early in 1879, he conceived the idea of making a secondary battery by applying mechanically to suitable plates an active or absorptive coating, so that such plates might be used at once, after suitable charging, for electrical storage purposes, without the tedious, preliminary, forming process described by Plantti,. In the summer of 1879 he embodied this idea; making a secondary battery by applying to suitable plates or supports, by mechanical means, an active or absorbent coating. For this purpose he took a piece of sheet lead about 3 inches wide and about 12 inches long, and sprinkled thereon finely divided metallic lead, in the form of a fine powder, which could be passed through a sieve. This layer was about one-sixteenth of an inch in thickness, and it extended the whole width of the plate, and about three-fourths of its length. The lead powder was held in place by blotting paper, the edges of which were turned hack and under the plate at the sides and bottom. A narrow strip of wood was laid longitudinally on the blotting paper and the whole was wound tightly with a string. This plate was suspended in a tall glass jar nearly filled with dilute sulphuric acid, and formed the oxygen element of the cell. The hydrogen element was a plate of amalgamated zinc, suspended opposite the prepared lead plate in the glass jar. Soon after the completion of this cell he prepared two more lead plates in exactly the same manner as the one· described, and hung them both in a tall glass jar filled with the same electrolyte. In this cell one of the prepared lead plates formed the oxygen element, and the other the hydrogen element. He connected this cell in a series with the one first described. and charged it by means of the current from a dynamo-electric machine. The strength of the current was not measured, but it was somewhere about five ampers. He charged the cell several hours on each of several days before commencing to discharge it. He discharged it through a fixed and constant resistance, and noted the time which the current lasted, and was thus able to compare the performance of this cell quantitatively with that of other cells discharging through the same resistanC'e. This resistance consisted in the helices of the electro-magnet of a single-stroke electric call-bell. Upon the passage through this magnet of the current from the secondary battery cells its armature was strongly attracted. He found that the electrical storing; capacity of the prepared plates was very much greater than that of the Plante plates of the same size. During the first few weeks, after the construction of the cell with the lead plates as described, he discharged and recharged it frequently, and sometimes daily. After that he always kept it charged, and discharged it less frequently, up to May,1880. Besides ringing the electric call-bell he used the cell of this v.38F.no.2-9
1'80'
FEDERAtl
voL 38.'
battery in connection with other secondary cells {or exciting a large electro-magnet, with which he magnetized permanent 'magnets. He also ,used it in connection with other cells for the 'heating of platinum and iron 'Wires, and for the ocular demonstration to others of the storage of electricity. About the same he made two other cells, alike in every particular, eXbept that the coating was, in one instance, of red oxide of lead, and in the other, of litharge. 'He subjected these cells to the same treatment as the ones first described, with substantially the same result. He says of these cells that "they were all completed, finished, and operative storage batteries from the time of their construction and first charging up to the time of the fire, when they were destroyed. They all operated successfully and reliably during that time." All of the results obtained by Mr. Brush were carefully noted down and preserved; some in the form of entries in a 'diary, and some on loose sheets of par per. On the 6th of May, 1880, his laboratory, with its contents, was totally destroyed by fire. His diary, and the loose memoranda concerning his experiments, were all lost. In July, 1880, Mr. Brush made lead plates with deep grooves, and into the grooves of some he rammed yellow oxide of lead, and in others sulphate of lead. , These plates were laid, grooved side up, in suitable vessels containing dilute sulphuric acid with a piece of metallic zinc' in contact with the plates. By this electrical action, continued for many days, the oxide and the sulphate in the grooves were reduced to metallic lead, and the zinc went wholly or partly into solution. He suspended opposite each other, in a vessel of dilute sulphuric acid, two plates which had originally had sulphate of lead in their grooves; and in another cell he suspended two plates the grooves of which were originally filled with oxide of lead. Theseplates were four inches long by two wide, and were immersed till the grooved portion waseovered by the liqUid. These cells were charged by a Smee' battery. They were charged'lind recharged many times. In March, 1881, they were accidentally lost during a removal. Early in September, 1880, he prepared six deeply grooved lead plates, and filled the grooves of two of them' by ramming them full of litharge, and of two more similarly with sulphate of lead. He then treated them as he had the July plates, and in a few days1.he oxide of lead in one case, and the Blliphate of lead in'the other case, were reduced to the metallic state. He suspended the two plates which had been' filled with oxide of lead opp6sit. each other in a jar fiUedwith dilute sulphuric acid, and treated siniila:dy the pair having their grooves originally filled with sulphate of le!J.d and the pair whose groo\16S were not filled at all. He marked these celle, respectively, 1, 2, and 3; connected them in series,charged them f'roma' dyna,mo, and made, several' tests. After the fire in 1880 ,'a full, memorandum waakept of the experiments and results obtained. After Faure's patent was issued in January; 1882, interferences were demanded by Brush, and resulted in decisiortsinhis favor at all stagesdutingthe progress through , . In many important features oPhis testimony he is corroborated by the evidence of three witnesses who were present, and saw many of the
ELEC'fRlPAL ACcUMULATOR CO.
JULIEN ELECTRIC CO.
\3xperinients to. ,After,the fire, Brush undertook to reproduCe from. memory ,the memoranda which had been destroyed, and criticism is made that he' does not describe with particularity the bntteries which he now says he, invented, though he does describe with great detail other and inconsequential experiments. It isunforiunate that liis produced notes should be so meagre on the points in controversy, that his original apparatus should have been destroyed, and that his battery of July, 1880, should have been lost. Improbabilities and inconsistencies in his statements are pointed out, and it is asserted that none'Of the experiments detailed by him amount to a though it is unquestionably true that this proof might have been more convincing and satisfactory, it is also true that there is nothing opposed to it but presumption, conjecture, and guess-work,based upon its inherent defects. There is no fatal improbability, as in the case of the other alleged priorinventor, and the court would not be justified in jecting for the reasons suggested the testimony of four intelligent, respectl!:ble, and apparently fair and honest witnesses;, The testimony of Mr. Edmunds and Mr. Hayes is not inconsistent with the statements of Mr. Brush. It is not surprising that he did not care to disclose his lnperiments to ,Mr. Edmunds, and when they met and conversed in Paris his application was on file in the patent-office. Nor does it avail' the complainant that the Brush structures were experimental, as distinguished ,from commercial batteries. If the invention was made it cannot Iilatter how it was made, or for what purpose. It is only where , experiments fail to reach the desired result, and are ahandoned as ures, that they are rejected as proof of want of novelty. They are not rejected when they are carried to a successful consummation. Waterman v. Thomson,2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 461; Aiken v. Dolan, 3 Fish; Pat. Cas. 197,203; Walk. Pat. §§ 63, 86. The evidence of Mr. Brush as to what he accomplished in 1879 and 1880 must be accepted liS true; and, although Faure was de facto the first inventor, Brush was de jure the first inventor of the electrodes described by him. It is not, however, contended for Mr. Brush that he applied the active layer to any of his electrodes in the form of a paint, paste, or cement. It therefore becomes apparent that the combination of the first claim, construed, as it must be construed under the loose and inaccurate language of the specification, is anticipated in every form in which the active layer can be applied, save one, namely, in the form of a paint, paste, or cement. The question now to be considered is, can the patent be saved to this extent? The application in the form of a paint, paste, or cement was the real invention which Faure made. It was in this form that he gave it practical embodiment; it was this that the scientific stood to be his improvement. An electrode for a secondary battery, with the activdayer applied in this form, has many undoubted advantages over an electrode otherwise coated. It can be applied more evenly; it more readily adheres to the support; it does not shift its position; it "will also pack more closely and readily, and make an adherent layer from which air can be thoroughly excluded, so that contact with the.
plate and throughout the mass applied material is secured," and, finally, a greater and less expensive storage capacity can be obtained. There can be little question, upon this proof, that Faure made his discoveryas early as August, 1878. Scientific people at once recognized the progressive step taken, and to him was accorded the credit of an invention of extraordinary merit. Sir William Thomson says: "I knew the PlanM secondary battery prior to 1880. Faure's invention was a Vf'ry great improvement on it; so great as to produce a valuable apparatus for large practical work, instead of merely an interesting and instructive scientific instrument. which PlanM's secondary battery was."
It does not appear that Sir William Thomson had the Faure patent before him, but he considered that"Faure's invention was the application to two plates-preferably lead plates -of a thin layer of oxide of lead, mechanically applied prior to placing the plates in the battery fluid; the plates and their coatings being insoluble in the battery fluid, and the coatings becoming so altered by the charging current as to become capable of yielding a reverse current, and this. over and over again, an indefinite number of times. 1 consider the novelty of Faure's invention to be the application of the oxide of lead to the lead plates before passing an electric current through them. and the rendering of these coatings active by immersing them in the battery liquid, and passing the charging current through them." Professor Barker, the expert witness for the defendants, says: "To Mr. Faure was due, in my judgment, all the credit which accrued by producing the porous or spongy metallic layer by the method of applying a layer of active material prior to commencing to charge the battery over that due to Plante for producing substantially the same result by the methe-I(} of disintegration. " And, again: "I think an electrode formed mechanically would have an advantage of construction in most, if not all, cases over an electrode electrolj'·tically coated. "
Professor Van der Weyde says: supreme. and equal importance in the construction of a successful storage or secondary battery, to-wit: (1) The mechanical application of a previously prepared compound or paste of the active material; (2) the securing of Buch material to the plate or support by means of recesses in the plate which it entered; and (3) the use of an inoxidizable plate or support." Mr. Vansize, an expert witness for the complainant, says: "Faure made a discovery which threw additional light on the art of making commercially successful secondary batteries. As the specification states, he was familiar with Plante's battery, and with its degree of effectiveness, but to just what that effectiveness or superiority was due does not appear to have been known prior to Faure's invention. Faure discovered that the efficiency of Plante's battery was due to the use of finely divided spongy lead as a positive element, and his invention is embodied, and the discovery outlined, in the first claim of the patent." The inventor himself says of his earliest experiments: "1 took two plates of lead about two and a half inches wide; covered each plate on one side with a paste of litharge, etc. .. .. .. 1 do not claim to
"1 am of the opinion that there are three inventions Which are of leading,
ELEcrRICALACCUMULATOR CO. t7. JULIEN ELEcrRIC CO.
have invented spongy lead, but I boast of being the first that produced it tn large quanttty on the electrode of a battery, and the first to recognize it as an efficient element of a secondary battery."
It is, then, established with reasonable certainty that the discovery of a mechanically applied layer of lead or like substance insoluble in the electrolyte, and placed upon the supports in the form of a paste, paint, or cement prior to their immersion in the battery fluid, so as instantly to become porous. and capable of receiving and discharging electricity, was one of great merit. There is no doubt, either, that Faure was the first to make this discovery. Can he hold the fruits of his genius, or must the court decide that in attempting, through mistake or ignorance of what had previously been accomplished. to grasp more than he was fairly entitled to, he has lost what actually belonged to him? Believing that Faure is an inventor of more than usual merit, it can readily be inferred that the court enters'upon this inquiry with every disposition to give him the benefit of his actual inyention, if possible to do so under the law. The proof establishes two propositions with equal clearness: Fir8t, Faure was the inventor of a secondary battery electrode coated in the manner stated; and, second, he was not the inventor of an electrode otherwise coated. If, by means of a disclaimer, the patent can be restricted to the actual invention, this course should, in fairness, be adopted. Section 4922 of the Revised Statutes provides that"Whenever, through inadvertence, accident, or mistake, and without any willful default or intent to defraud or mislead the pUblic, a patentee h$s, in his specification, claimed to be the original and first inventor or discoverer of any material or substantial part of the thing patented, of which he was not the original and first inventor or discoverer, every such patentee, his executors, 'I< 'I< * and assigns, * * * may maintain a suit at law or in equity, for the infringement of any part thereof, which was bona fide his own, if it is a material and substantial part of the thing patented, and definitely distingUishable from the parts claimed wiLhout rigbt, notWithstanding the specifications may embrace more than that of which the patentee was the first inventor or discoverer. But in every such case in which a judgment or deCree shall be rendered for the plaintiff no costs shall be recovered unless the proper disclaimer has been entered at the patent-office before the commence· ment of the snit. But no patentee Shall be entitled to the benefits of this section if he has unreasonably neglected or delayed to enter a disclaimer."
Section 4917 provides as follows: "Whenever, through inadvertence, accident, or mistake, and without any fraudulent or deceptive intention, a patentee has claimed more than that of which he was the original or first inventor or discoverer, his patent ,shall be valid for all that part which is truly and justly his own, provided the same is a material or substantial part of the thing patented; and any such patentee, his heirsorassigos, * * * may, on payment of thefeerequired bylaw, make disclaimer of such parts of the thing patented as he shall not choose to claim or to hold by virtue of the patent or assignment, stating therein the extent of his interest in such patent. Such disclaimer shall be in writing, * * * and it shall thereafter be considered as part of the original specification. * * · But no such disclaimer shall affect any action pending atthll time
. nDERAL RlilfOR'.l'ER, vol.
its being filed, except so far annay, relate to the questipn unreasonable neglect or delay in tilitlg it. " Mr. Walker, in his work on Patents, at section 193, has blended these two sectionS! .in one He says, (section 194 et seq,:) . . . "The primary fact which brings the law into play is the claiming by a patentee of materially more than that.of which he was the first inventor. Such errors may spring from inadvertence; that is to say, they may spring fi'om faihll'e'on the part of the writer of the claims to exercise proper care in penning them. So, also, they mayad-sefrom accident, from chances against which even diligent care. cannot alway!s guard. But mistake is the most common sOllrce of.such errOl'S; and such may arise from mistake of fact or from mista!l;e of law. .... ... ... If the patentee is willing to eliminate flam his claims everything which later infl)rmation shows. had been in vented before him, he ought to be allowed to retain his exclusive right to the residue. ... ... '" '£here are cases where two or more covered by Olie claim, and in such cases a diselaimer may be made to expunge one of those inventions from that claim, without the others." Mr. Curtis says: "Specifications may also be amended by another process,-that of filing a disclaimer,-whenever throngh inadvertency, accident, or mistake the original claim was too broad, claiming more than that of which the patentee was the odginal pr firstinvent9r, provided some material and substantial part of the thing patented is justly and tl."uly his own. '" '" '" In Seed v. Higgins,8 El. & BI. 755, 771; the patentee ... ... ... entered a disclaimer, declaring: · For the reason aforesaid !'do hereby disclaim all application of the law or principle of force as being part of my invention, or comprised in my claim, except ouly the application of centrifugal force by means of a weight acting upon a presser, so as to cause it to press against the bobbin, as described in said specification.' It was held by the court of Queen's Bench, and affirmed by the Exchequer Chamber, that this disclaimer was valid, and that, the original ,specificatIOn being read in connection with it, the result was a claim for only the machine particularly described." Curt. Pat. §§ 267., 286. In Aiken v. Dolan, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 197. the patent was for an improvement in knitting needles, and the proof showed that the patentee was the first inventor of an improved latch needle with a curved elevation which was highest at the middle of the groove, and with such a corresponding elevation of the pivot that the end of the latch was depressed when it fell back at that extremity of the groove where the latch of the p'rimitive needle had projected upwards. The claim was as follows: "What I claim as my invention,and desire to secure by letters patent,Is th'e application ofa latch or tongue applied to the hook of the needle and operated as herein described." The court says, 207:) "But when the actual· invention is thus referred to this improvement alone, the claim in the specification is too broad. It states that· the invention consists in the application of the latch or tongue in connection with the hook of the needle. sweeping freely back·and·forth upon the center pin. The general operation of a latch needle is described, without any specific restriction to the form represented in the drawings. '" '" '" The patent is therefore broader
ELECTRICAL ACCUMULATOR CO. tl. JULIEN
than the actual novelty of the invention.Bya proper disclaimer of the -.invention of latch needles without any such curvature, the patent would, however, be sustainable for the actual improvement." In Myerav. Frame, 8 Blatchf. 446, the claim was for "the employment or use of the deflecting plates, E, E,' 'one or both," etc. Judge BI.A.TCH' FORD held that"The disclaimer of the use of only one deflecting plate withtbe saw, and the limitation thereby of the first claim to the use of the two deflecting plates with the saw, was proper, and the disclaimer was in proper form." In Taylorv. Archer, Id. 315, the claim was for "the use and application of glue, or gluecornposition, in the tubing, substantia.lly as described, for the .purpose of inaking the flexible tubing gas-tight, whether of cloth, or rubber, or other gum." A disclaimer, filed pendente lite, of that part of the claim "which claims, as an improvement in flexible tubing for illuminating gas, the use and application of glue, thereby limiting the claim to the use and application of glue composition in the tubing, substantially as described," was held to be valid.. . In Tuck v. Bramhill, 6 Blatchf. 95, the claim forming of packing for pistons of steam-engines, either in connection with an Indiarubber core or without." It was held that the claim was equivalent to two separate claims,-one for the forming of the. roll with the core, arid another for the forming of the roll without the core; that theJormer was new, but the latter was old; and the patentee had a right to disclaim what was old and retain what was new. . In Schillinger v.Gunther, 17 Blatchf. 66, it was.held that a disclaimer which took out of the patent 80 much thereof as claimed a concrete pavement made of plastic material laid in detached blocks or sections, with-:out interposinganything between their joints in the process offormation, and which limited the claim to such a pavement when free joints were made between the blocks by interposing tar paper, or Its equivalent, was good. It was held further, that it was not improper, in connection with a disclaimer -of a claim, to eliminate or withdraw by the same instrument the of the body of the specification on which the disclaimed claiIP, <;>rpart of a claim, is founded. See, also) Schillinger Gunther, 14 Blatchf. 152. _In Roemer v. }{eumann) 26 Fed. Rep, 102, the for a lock, was hElld void for want of novelty, on the ground that itwuld not be limiteeJ, so as to inclUde in the claim certain notches in the end-pieces. The court said: "There is no reference, in terms, either in the specification Or the claim, to notches or recesses in the end-pieces. The drawings, however, shOw the end-pieces formed with notches or recesses, and the patentee incidentaHyrefers to a use to which the end-pieces may be applied inwhich,inferentialIy, the notches or recesses would be necessary; 'fhis fane far ..short of making the notches or recesses an essential feature of the invention. It cannot be doubted that the reference in the specification is to be treated merely as recommendatory ofaform of lock-plate for a specified use, such as is shown in the drawing."
After this decision was rendered, the patentee filed a disclaimer, disclaiming" in the first and second claims any blocks, B, that have not the notches formed in them as shown in the drawing," and' thereupon asked for a rehearing. A rehearing was ordered, Judge WALLACE observing: "Such a disclaimer as has been entered in this case is sanctioned by the case of Schillinger v. Gunther. 17 Blatchf. 66. The case of Hailes v. Stove 00·· 16 Fed. Rep. 240.is not analogolls in its facts." In Libbey v. Glass Co., 26 Fed. Rep. 757, the 'court says: and are not "The claims of the patent are as broad as the limited to any particular compound. Since bringing suit the plaintiff has filed a disclaimer under the statute. in which he limits his claim to the gOldruby compound. This the plaintIff had a right to do. Under the authori. ties cited by the plaintiff this was a patent where a part could be properly disclaimed. It did not require the importation of anything new into tbe specification, but simply the elimination of a part of what was originally claimed." See, also, Silsby v. Foote, 20 How. 386; Hall v. Wiles, 2 BIatchf. 194, 198; O'Reil1yv. Morse, 15 How. 62,121; McCormick v. Seymour, 3 BIatchf. 209,222; Seymour v. McCormick, 19 How. 96,106; Singerv. Walmsley,1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 558, 574; Clock Co. v. Clock Co., 4 Ban. &A.121; Christman v. Rumsey, 17 Blatchf. 148, 160; Coburn v. Schroeder, 19 BIatchf., 377,380,8 Fed. Rep. 519; Burdettv. Estey, 19 BIatchf. 1,7,3 Fed. Rep. 566; Manufacturing Co. v. Manufacturing Co., 8 Fed. Rep. 60R, 610; Tyler v. Galloway, 20 BIatchf., 445,447,12 Fed. Rep. 567; Gage v. Herring, 107 U. S. 640, 646, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 819; Brush v. Condit, 22 BIatchf. 246,254, 20 Fed. Rep. 826; Matthews v. Spangenberg,20 BIatchf., 482, 19 Fed. Rep. 823; Sessions v. Romadka, 21 Fed. Rep. 124; Dunbar v. Myer8, 94 U. 8. 187; Cartridge Co. v. Cartridge Co., 112 U. 8.624, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 475. The law, as established by the foregoing authorities, permits the complainant to save what was really Faure's invention. The defendants, in opposition to this view, rely upon Hailes v. Stove Co., 16 Fed Rep. 242, affirmed, 123 U. S. 582, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 262. There seems to be a clear distinction between that case and the one at bar. In that case there was nothing in the specification to indicate to the public that the invention of the patentee was what he sought to make it by the disclaimer. He claimed "a perforated fire-pot," etc., and when he found that this was old he sought by disclaimer to limit his invention to a particular kind of fire-pot, described for the first time in the disclaimer. At page 587, 123 U. S., and 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 265, the supreme court say: "A disclaimer is usually and properly employed for the surrender of a separate claim in a patent, or some other dilltinct and separable matter. which can be exscinded without mutilating or changmg what is left standing. Perhaps it may be used to limit a claim to a particular class of objects, or even to change the form of a claim which is too broad in its terms; but certainly it cannot be used to change the character of the invention. And jf it requires an amended specification or suplemental description to make an altered claim intelligible or relevant. while it may possibly present a case for a surrender and reissue. it is clearly not adapted to a disclaimer. A man cannot, by merely filing a paper drawn up by his solicitor. make to himself a new patent. or
ELECTRICAL ACCUMULATOR CO. tI. JULIEN ELECTRIC CO.
one for a different invention from that which he has described in his specification. That is what has been attempted in this case. There is no word or hint in the patent that the invention claimed was a fire-pot with sides grated only half-way, or part of the way, from the bottom towards the top, or that such partially grated sides have any advantage over those grated all the way to the top. The first claim, as modified by the disclaimer. has nothing in the spedfication to stand upon; nothing to explain it, nothing to furnish a reason for it." The decision states no new law. It is entirely in line with the other authorities cited. Instead of forbidding, it would seem to sanction, a disclaimer in the case at bar. The facts here and in the FIaile.'l Case are wholly different. Hardly one of the criticisms upon thpt disclaimer would apply to a properly drawn disclaimer here. The part of the invention which bona fide bel(lngs to Faure is an electrode in a secondary battery consisting of a support coated with an insoluble layer of active material in the form of a paint, paste, or cement, so as to beor instantly become spongy, etc. It was this that the scientific world recognized as a discovery of great merit and importance. It was this that the distinguished Scotch electrician regarded as "marvelous." And this was the result of Faure's genius. No one anticipated him. It is honestly his. What he did not invent was an electrode, in a secondary battery, coated with a soluble layer of active material. Neither did he invent an electrode on which the active material is applied byrl galvanic action, or chemical precipitation. or otherwise." Thj;lclaim .is broad enough to cover all these forms probably, and some them cerWhat he is not fairly entitled to he wishes to give up, and)eep what is certainly his own. He does not seek to broaden his patent, but greatly to restrict it. No one will infringe unless he Constructs his battery in the one way to which the patent will be confined. This is the patentee's way, and it has many distinguishing characteristics which differentiate it from the ways pointed out by others. The matter to be relinqui'shed is distinct and separate, and can be exscinded without mutilating what. is left. No amendment is necessary. The claim, read' in the light of the description, is too broad. It is sought to limit it. 'The disclaimer suggested will not make a new patent, or a different invention. The invention is fully described in the specification, and the lin:iited claim will stand on that description. After giving the subject the most careful consideration it is thought that Faure was the originator of the invention just described, and that it would be unjust to him to declare the patent wholly void, if he is willing to restrict it to what is lawfully his own. The fourth claim, if construed to cover the defendants' structure, is void for want of novelty. It is for a combination containing the following elements: First, a secondary battery; 8econd, a series of cells; third, in each cell a pair of electrodes, with an active spongy layer thereon; fourth, non-porous partitions between adjacent cells. The specification declares that"Secondary batteries, like ordinary galvanic batteries, can be made witb a series of cells side by side, or one above the other, with the intermediate walls
common to the two adjacent cells. In making such batteri2s it .is ad vantageous, and in some cases essential, to apply a non.porouspartition of rubber or other snitablesubstance to the plates, BOBS to cut of!' aU communication between the cells. This combination' of uon-porousdiaphragms with the elec,trodes in such secondary batteries constitutes a portion of the invention." In other words, the.c1aim, knot linlited to, tge peculiar construction shown'in the specification and drawings, is for 'placing the electrodes of a secondary batteryin an old form of cells. One of the expert witnesses for the complainant says: "I understand that the series of cells described in the fourth claim ofthis patent is simply the series ofcells of the Cruikshank trough battery transferred to or used in a/lecolldary battery." Another of the complainant's experts testifies that, in his opinion, "the claim covers. the ':use, in a secondary battery, of the wellknown trough divided into cells by non-porous partitions long used in primary batteries, ,and in whi.ch Faure has replaced the primary battery electrodes by t};1esecondary battery electrodes of his own construction." ,And, again, he says: ."The specification describes one way in which the 'elements ofthe may he constructed, and the language of the fourth claim is broad enough to cover, not only that sp,acific construction, but any other substantially the same, by which substantially the' saiperesultjs pbtainE:ld." Upon the statements()fthe patent itself the many structures, which the record discloses, without having a of cells, no novelty can be main,tained. It is to be observed that the' claim is' not necessarlly confined to the Fallre' electrodes. After reading the specification, it may with plausibility maintained that the patentee was of the opinion that invention was involved in doing in a secondary b.attery wAltt had previously been done in a primary battery. He wished to claim'a series of weH-known cells when applied toa seC. Til,e. claim covt::rs, in a secoudarybattery, a series of cells., comprising each a pair ofelectrocles, with an actiye,, spongy layer It is broad enough, tperefore, to include the electrodes of and ofothers, alfwell as of Faure. An electrician who should place I,i,!lerles of coi.I'ples inton trough, like Wallastoh'sJor divided irito cells by diaphragms, would infringe.. But there is obviouSly no patentable I)ovelty in .such. an arrangemeJ:1t; especially in view of the fact that had employed almost the combination. In the desci'ipth;erpeI1)orandurri of his patent (No. 78,897) Plante says: it is, desired to, connect s.everal elements in series, the plates themllelve$ ()an serve/lS the'walls of the contiguous troughs. just as in the Cruikshank voltaic ba.ttety." . WiththeinformatiQ.nderivedfrom the prior ar,t before him, the arrangement qf the clliim would .have been obvious to a neophyte in electricity. : It is not often that a single-cell .battery is utilized in the arts. When a battery Qfmort:1 power is needed, the convenient but obvious armngement of the f01.lrt;ll would suggest itseV to anyone who has sense enough to economize time, space and money. Even if the claim c01.l1d to Faure's electrodes, there would. still be nothing of which to .predioa,tepatentability·. A mere aggregation of cells, with no
ELECTRICAL ACCUMUT ATORCO. It!. 'ULrEN1l:LECTRIC CO.
result except sueh as is d<;>rived froni multiplication, is not stlfficient. If Faure had omitted the fuurthclaim, 'andoall reference thereto, in thE! specification,no one else could have obtained a patent for a Cruikshank or Wilkinson cells containing Faure's electrodes., Neither can Faure. No matter how ingenious a devise may be,there is no more of the inventive faculty displayed in placing it in a knownseries than if it were of the simplest character. Invention cannot be asserted for the aggregation because of the llovelchllracter of the segregated structures. There is no more ingenuity displayed in placing Faure's electrodes in a ,well-known trough than in ,placing there the electrodes of some one else. His invention was for a new electrode in a battery. This he is entitled to, but he is not entitled to claim as new 11 well,lmown construction of cells because he puts his new electrodes into them. It is clear that a construction' oLthe claim, which is broad enough to cover the defendant's battery,renders ,the claim Bush v. Fox, 38 Eng. Law & Eq.1; Holmes v. Alarm Co., 33 Fed. :aep. 254; HaUe8v. Stove Co.· 123 U. S. 586, 8 Ct. 262,;<Hea,ting Cd.v. Burtis, 121 S. 286, 7 Sup: Ct. Rep. 1034; Railroad Co. v.Truck (]a., 110 U. S. 490,4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 220; Car Co. v. Car Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 130: A limited construction can, however, be givetithe claim, which will render it valid. " The defendants'expert insists that the claim must be confined to a combination in which the electrodes are combined with non-porous partitions between adjacent cells by being applied thereto. The. manner in which this is done is described in .the specification. ,It says: "Fig. 6 is a cross-section of an electrode with non-varoua partition, Mving the prepared plates secured on bolh sides, and adapted for ·use· in a battery with sei'iesof adjacent cells. lie lie lie It shows of parallel plates formed with an interposed wooden board. w. Thja arrangemellt mitsof employing thin sheets of lead. while securing at the time cient stiffness, and affording means of firmly securing the. parts, w,. without any leaktige between the adjacent celiS, formed on each side of the leaden plate, a." . .. The specification furtherstates. that when the supporting plates are to be placed either parallel or in any other position. permitting of their ueing distorted: by mechanical strain, stiffness may be imparted by applying them on wood or hard rubber non-porous boards, sd as to prevent any liquid passing from one cell to another. The boards ofthet;e compound supports have edges fitted with india-rubber, in order to rende]: the cells perfectly liq\lid tight. It is argued with force and plausibility that it was the tention of the patentee, as shown by these extracts from the specification, to cover only his special construction; the novel feature of which is the non-porous partition with which the electrodes are combined, and to which they:are applied. It is asserted that this intention more certaiQ py an examination of the file-wrapper, w'hl;lre it is still. more clearly discloSlld; and that nowhere in the. specification is there a description of the apparatus as by the defenda.nts. In view of
these facts, and because the patentee, in effect, disclaimed the construction sought to be placed upon the claim by the complainant; it would seem that the defendants' construction has much in reason and authority to support it, and is the more rational of the two. So construed, the defendants do not infringe the claim. The patent granted to Joseph Wilson Swan, February 17, 1885, (No. 312,599,) is for an improvement in secondary batteries. The application was filed January 18, 1882. The object and aim of the patentee was the production of plates having surfaces more suitable for holding the active material. In carrying out this idea he prepares plates with perforations, cells or holes extending through the plates, in which the adive material is packed. He says: "It should be understood that the form of the cells may be greatly varied without departing from the principle of my said invention, the object being to obtain an interstitial construction· of plate capable of affording a very large amount of acting surface in a small compass, and to prevent the coating of oxide or spongy lead from falling away from the plate, as it would from a plain yertical surface, unless held in position by s6me material external to the . . said coating;"
The claim IS: ...A perforated or cellular plate for secondary batteries, having the perforations or cells extending through the plate, and the active material, or material to becomeaetive, packed in the said perforations or cells, substantially as described. " . The specification states that the patentee has obtained a patent in Great Britain for the same invention, dated May 24, 1881. It is argued that this allegation carried the ipvention back to the date of that patent, although the patent itself has not been introduced in evidence. No authority is produced to sustain this contention. Being a mere declaration, unsupported by proof, it is thought that it cannot be accepted as the date of the invention, which, in the absence of other proof, must be taken as of the date of the application,January 18, 1882. The advantages of a plate constructed in the manner described are well sUlllmarized by Sir William Thompson. He says: . "The making cif the support-plates pel-forated to receive the active oxide has great advantage over making them with mere grooves or roughenings, becaustl.it supel'sedes the necessity for felt or cloth to prevent the active material from falling off. * * *. I have found the oxide very liable to crack away and fall off when merely placed ing-l"Ooves or pressed into hollows of a tonghened plate. When pressed into perforations they remahl very securely attached, forming, as it Were, 'livetti.' * * * Even with bad usag-e it is a rare accident that one of the oxide' rivets' breaks and faIlE' out. The perfOrated plates havtl also the great advantage of extending the area of electric commu nication between the contiuous metallic conduclor and the spongy or· llorous so minimizing the electric resistance. The application of the oxide in the form of numerous mutually dlltached parts separately held by the perforations had also a great advantage in almost annulling the warping or fracturing effects of the expllnsibn:tnd contraction produced by the changes of oxidation to which the active material is exposed in the charging and discharging of the l:iattery."
EI,ECTRICAL ACCUMULATOR CO. t1. JULIEN ELECTRIC CO.
In view of these facts, there is no difficulty in deciding that an eleetrode so constructed was patentable. The invention is a simple one, but something more than mechanical skill was required. Indeed, the experts on both sides agree that such an electrode has marked and peculiar advantages. It is insisted that the patent, as issued, is an unlawful expansion of the original application, and therefore within the rule of Railway v. Sal/les, 97 U. S. 563. The argument is based upon the assumption that in the original specification the patentee nowhere describes electrodes with perforations extending through the plates, and that it was not until March 24, 1882, that he mentioned a perforated plate. The complainant denies this, and asserts that Figs. 1 and 2 in the patent, as issued, are identical with these figures in the original drawings. Positive proof of this statement has not been found, but the presumption that it correctly states the fact is very strong. The original specification states that"The plate &bown in Figs.! and 2 is constructed with Cells or cavitit's, a, for the reception and rett'ntionof spongy lead. ... ... ... Thecells may be closed on one side, as shown at c, in Fig. 2." The only rational construction would. seem to be that, as the last figure showed the cells closed on one sige, the two others show:ed them not clOSE'" but open through the plate. It must also be assumed that the of the patent-office performed their duty,and did not permit a fraud to be perpetrated by the alteration of the drawings. There is absolutely no proof that such alterations were made, and, if the memoranda of the file-wrapper can be relied up()n for any purpose, they show that the original drawings were in the office at the time the claim for a perforated plate was presented, and long afterwards. The question, therefore, is whether there is anything in the art prior to January 18, 1882, which anticipates theclaim, or renders it invalid. The English patent granted to John S. Sellon doe.s not anticipate, for the reason that, though dated September 10,1881, it was not sealed until March 10, 1882, after the filing of Swan's application. It was not made patent to the public, therefore, until March 10, 1882. Smith v. Goodyear, 93 U. S. 486, 498; Bliss v. Me-trill, 33 Fed. Rep. 39, 40; Siemens v. SeUers, 123 U. S. 276, 283, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 117. But the evidence of Prof. Asahel K. Eaton, if it does not amoupt to It complete anticipation, so narrows the field of invention that nothing remains of which to predicate patentable novelty. It is thought, however,; that as to some of the electrodes made by him there (Jan be no doubt that they fully anticipate Swan's claim. If made now.for the first time they would infringe; being made belare the application, they anticipate. Cook v. Tool Co.,4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 4; Peters v. Manufacturing Co., Fed. Rep. 319; affirmed, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 389, (March 5,1889.) Prof. Eaton testifies that in 1881, and certainly prior to August, 1881, he made experiments in secondary batteries,using perforated lead plates for the electrodes. He finally adopted them, considering them preferable to others tried by him. These plates were' perforated by means of a belt punch, which cut out small discs varying from a qnarter to five-eighths
",',;1':"
FEDitR,AL'REPORTER,
vol. 3S.' ,
of an inch 8ecording to tM!size:of the plates. Lead sponge previously prepared was then precipitated upon both sides of the plate so as to cover both surfacesahd fill He says: "I afterwards adopted one of'themethods which I had tried, where I used two perforated plates with the sponge deposited upon one or both of them. and the two plates put together; soa8to retain the sponge between them. the sponge filling the perforations. This made one electrode. The other electrode was made with two similar perforated platell. ,the peroxide being made into a paste with sulphuric acid imdwater, and pasted upon each side of a piece of ashestos. This was put between the two perforated plates. and pressed down. so that the paf:lte covered the whole surface of each half plate. and filled the perforations. Some of these plates were perforated. so as to leave a burr projecting in one direction, which aided in the I'etentian of the Pilste; the two burred being outside. This provided an enlarged cellular cavity." In July, 1881, hernade another battery, with the assistance of one George Farrington',who corroborates him in part as to its,construction. This battery was made by spreading the described paste upon either cloth or asbestos, and inclosing it between two perforated plates of leaa. The perforatidns, in the absence of ti proper tool, were made with a knife. This formed one element. The other element was made by precipitat'lng lead sponge upon one surface of a similarly prepared plate, and covering it with' another. plate, so' as to make one,-folded together at the edge. The paste was Uliniuni,nrixed with sulphuric acid and water. This paste filled the perforations in the plates. ProL Eaton also made electrodes by coating with a .similar paste a frame-work of woVP,n lead wire. The batteries thus construct6d.by him were charged, and wor:\{ed successfully. Besides Farrirlgttln, he is corroborated by Mr. Sleeper, who assisted in the construction of the batteries of August, 1881, by punching holes in regular order in the leaden· plates. And Sleeper is, in turn, corroborated by entries-made at the time in his diary, which also contains' rough drawings of the perforated leaden plates; No evidence is offered by the complainant Which at all conflicts with the verity ofthese statements. As before' observed, the court is not permitted to reJeot the eddence of unimpeached nnd respectable witnesses, when they l1i"ecorroborated, and thereis'nothi.ng to cast a doubt upon the truth of their statements. Upon this evidence, therefore, the first Swan patent must be declared'invalid. The second patent granted to Joseph Wilson Swan is dated May 26, 1885, (No. 318,828.) The application was filed May 3, 1883. The claim is as follows: . "th l,\ battery plate or electrode'(lornpo$"d of a'conductlng support, combined w:ith active material. the support in .thefo1111 oia plate with 'angular or eq ui valent holes. cells. or pt>rforatlons elCtt'ndingthl'ough the sarne, and sepai'ated from oneanotllf'f by webs, walls.or·partitions of uniform cross-section. the :being placed In said holes, cells, or perforations. substanas..set forth." i. ,This' would, 'seem to' be for' the same. subject-matter Cdvered by the first patent to Swan,. It is that the alleged inventiOIl is
ELECTRICAL ACCUMULATOR' CO. V. JULIEN ELECTRIC CO.
scribed and shown in the first patent. The only difference is that the second patent is for a. more limited sUbdivision ofthe same general invention. The patentee, in the specification, states: "It should '1:ie observed that I do not claim herein broadly the use of plates provided With holes or perforations extending through the same, and having the active material, or material to become active, held in such holes or ,perforations, ·as tbis.forms the·subject-matter of patent granted to me on the 17th -day of February. 1885, numbered 312,599." One of the complainant's experts, after stating his understanding of the first patent, says of the patent in hand: "It has a specific claim, -a chtimrendered specific by its limitation to uuiform webs, walls, or partitions separating the perforations from each other." Another of the .complainant's e:x.perts says that his understanding is that the second pat-ent covers plates or electrodes such as are described in the first patent, "with the additional limitation that the webs, walls, or partitioDsbetween the cells shall be of substantially uniform cross-section." It' will be observed that the drawing of the first patent shows a plate made in exact accordance with this limitation, and the specification states that the form"of:the 'cells may be greatly varied without departing from the principle of the invention.· Eveu if the second :patentcan be di.stinguished from the first in theparticnlar stated by the experts, it is,en- tirely c1earthatthe difference pointed out is wholly insufficient tain an invention. After the first patent there· was absolutely llO rOOm for the second patent; which, upon the most favorable construction for the complliinll:ut, simply claims an lJ,rrangement which any one who had :seuseenough to make the perforations at all would. most certainly adopt. When a patent .has beeu granted fora plate containing ,rows of holes, .another patent cannot be, granted for the same plate containing uniform rowsof'holes. Neithercan.there be anything patentable in.themere . ,shape of the holes. A patent for a device containing round holeS'will or trian. preclude a. .subsequent pa.tentfor the same device with .gular holes.' Manufacturing·(Jo. v. Buihing 00., 31 Fed. Rep·.76; 79. Especially is this so when the. applicant is confronted. ·with· his own express declarations that the shape is wholly immaterial. It is not neces. :sary to consider whether a valid patent can be obtained ,for an invention described, but: not claimed, by the applicant, in a prior patent issued -to him; the application for the second patent being filed before the first patent issues; That is not this: 'case. Swa,n describes no invention in the first patent which is not covered by the claimofthat patent. What is not claimed is not patentable. It follows, therefore, that the complainant, upon filing adis¢laimer limitiug the, first claim of the Faure. patent to an electrodeofa:second.arybattery'to which the active layer is applied in the formofa pah)t, paste, or cement, insoluble in the ,electrolytic liquid, is entitled toa·de-cree for ad inj.unctionand an accouuting upon the. cla,illl.a.S·'tAUa limited, but with9ut costs. ..
THE BREMENA 91. CARD.
(Di8trict Oourt, D. South Oarolina. February 25, 1889.)
ADUIRAT.TY-PRACTICE-ATTACHMENT.
The forty-seventh rule in admiralty abolishes imprisonment for debt on admiralty process in all cases where by the law of the state where the court is held imprisonment for debt has been abolished in similar cases. Rule 2 provides that in admiralty snits in personam the mesne process may be by a simpLe warrant "farrest of the defendant in the nature of a capias, or with a clause therein "that, if he cannot be found," to attach his goods. Held, that this clause does not mean "fonnd for the purpose of arrest," so as to justify an attachment in a case where defendant is actually within. and a resident of, the district, but cannot be arrested because of the state law.
In Admiralty. Question reserved. Barker, Gilliland &: F'UzSimons, for libelant. 1. N. Nathans, for respondent., SIMONTON, J. In this case a monition with warrant of arrest was issued, with this qualification: "In;conformity with rule 2 of the supreme court in admiralty." it appearing that the respondent was within this jurisdiction, and had been served with the monition, and was actually present in court ready to answer, so much of the order as directed his arrest was rescinded, and the question was reserved as fol'lows: "Whether in a case like this, in which the defendant, being within the jurisdiction, and served with process, and under the state law of force , in this court, cannot be held in arrest, or made to give bail, it can properly be said that I he cannot be found' for the purposes of arrest and therefore an attachment can issue against his goods." Counsel have been heard on this question so reserved. There can be no doubt that the warrant of arrest was rightfully rescinded. The forty-seventh rule in admiralty abolishes imprisonment for debt on process issuing out of the admiralty court in all cases where by the law of the state where the court is held imprisonment for debt has been, or shall be, abolished upon similar or analogous process issuing out of the state court. A person is imprisoned for debt who is arrested on mesne as well as final process. If arrested on mesne process, he, is held in the custody of the court until he gives bail. When relea.sed on bail, he remains in the custody of the bail, subject to arrest by the bail; and surrender into the custody of the court, at the option of the bail. He remains in custodv, the bail being 1 Mill, Const. substituted for the sheriff or marshal. Stevens v. ·318; Glover v. Gornillion, 2 Rich. Law, 554; Code Civil Proc. S. C. §§'209,210. In South Carolina "no person shall be imprisoned for debt eXMpt'in cases offraud." Const. art. 1, § 20. The Code of Ci viI Pro.'cetltrre:,§ 200, provides fotarrest on warrant in six cases. The first four cover cases of fraud eo nomine; the fifth provides for arrest of an absconding debtor though the debt be not yet due; the sixth authorizes ar· rest jn an action for the recovery of damages in a cause of action not aris·