Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF JOSEPH FUNK FOR THE REISSUE OF LETTERS-PATENT No. 184,855, GRANTED NOVEMBER 28, 1876, FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN LAMPS
Court: Supreme Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1881
Citations: 3 MacArth. 460
Docket Number: 
Parties: IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF JOSEPH FUNK FOR THE REISSUE OF LETTERS-PATENT No. 184,855, GRANTED NOVEMBER 28, 1876, FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN LAMPS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 10
Pages: 460–463

Head Matter:
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF JOSEPH FUNK FOR THE REISSUE OF LETTERS-PATENT No. 184,855, GRANTED NOVEMBER 28, 1876, FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN LAMPS.
The deflector or jacket located between the outer wick-case and the chimney-holder in the light-house lamp, described in letters-patent No. 184,855, granted to Joseph Funk November 2S, 1876. is not found in the Brandywine Shoals burner, upon which it has been rejected, and the public use of such latter lamp is no bar to a claim and patent for said deflector.
STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
Joseph Funk, of Tompkinsville, New York, obtained letters-patent of the United States No. 184,855, November 28, 1876, for certain improvements in lamps, relating particularly to that class of lamps known as Fresnel or concentric wick-burners, used extensively for the illumination of light-houses.
April 18,1877, Funk offered to surrender his original patent into the Patent Office, and requested that it might be reissued to him in corrected form, according to the provisions of the statute. (Rev. Stats., 4916.)
Certain clauses of claim made by him in his reissue application were found to be met by the invention of one H. IT. Doty, patent No. 109,803, November 15, 1870; and, upon request of the applicant Funk, an interference was declared between said Doty and himself (Rev. Stats., see. 4904) to determine the question of priority of invention.
During this interference, the lamp which had been used for several years in the Brandywine Shoals light-house, off the New Jersey coast, was introduced in evidence, and was considered to have anticipated the substantial features of both patents. The interference was thereupon dissolved by the Acting Commissioner, and the reissue refused. Funk pursued his remedy by appeal to this court, and he here presents six claims, which are set forth in the opinion of the court.
Of these claims the first, second, and fifth had been re fused by tbe Patent Office because of the Brandywine Shoals burner, which was thought to contain substantially the same features of construction specified in each of said claims. At the hearing, counsel for the applicant (Funk) admitted the sufficiency of the reference so far as it affected claims one aud five, but insisted that claim two was for subject-matter not found therein, and for which he was justly entitled to a patent; and in this claim it will be seen the court concurred. Claim four was likewise abandoned by the appellant when the case came on to be heard, but that was because of the English patent of Farquhar, No. 727, of 1872, which had been cited as a reference in anticipation, and so need not be considered further in the present statement.
As illustrating the difference between the lamp at the Brandywine Shoals and that of Mr. Funk, the cylinder in the former which determined the air annulars external to the outer wick-case, was stationary, while the jacket or deflector of the Funk lamp was movable and capable of adjustment at varying heights above the edges of the wicks by a separate and independent movement of its own. The court, as will be seen by the decision, was of opinion that this was covered by the second claim, and was a new and useful-improvement, and ordered a patent to be issued for the same, according to a claim or specification agreed upon by counsel on both sides.
C. S. Whitman, for appellant.
J. H. Peirce, for the Patent Office.

Opinion:
Cartter, Oh. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents rejecting the following claims:
1. A vertically-adjustable cyliuder exterior to the air-passage on the outside of the wick-case, whereby a column of air of uniform width is caused to rise in a direction parallel to the axis of the burner.
2. A light-house burner having a vertically-adjustable cylindrical deflector located in the air-space between the wick- tube and chimney-holder, whereby the inner current of air is thrown into the flame at.its most advantageous zone, and the outer air-current is drawn up along the surface of the chimney and injected into the flame above the inner current.
3. A light-house burner having a vertieally-adjustable cylindrical deflector located in the air-space between the wick-tube and the chimney-holder, and an open tube located in the central air-passage.
4. A Fresnel or concentric wick-burner having an air-passage between the outer wick-tube and the adjustable outer deflector, and an air-passage exterior to the tube located in the interior or central air-space.
5. The combination of the adjustable cylinder with the annular air-spaces on either side thereof, as and for the purposes described. .
6. A Fresnel or concentric wick-burner having an air-passage between the chimney and the adjustable outer deflector, an air-passage between the .outer wick-tube and the outer deflector, and an air-passage exterior to the tube located in the interior or central air-space.
At the hearing the counsel for the appellant admitted that the first, fourth, and fifth claims were substantially anticipated by a light-house burner known as the "Brandywine Shoals burner," which, it is alleged, was in continuous public use at the light-house at Brandywine Shoals during the years 1861, 1862, and 1863. It will only be necessary, therefore, to review the Commissioner's action in rejecting the second, third, and sixth claims.
The so-called adjustable cylinder in the Brandywine Shoals burner is rigidly attached to the chimney-bracket, and, if raised, the chimney-bracket must necessarily be carried with it. This would render it impossible to adjust the cylinder of the Brandywine Shoals lamp in such a way as to cause it to perform the functions of the outer deflector in the Funk burner, because, first, the raising of the chimney-bracket would raise the shoulder of the chimney which gives shape to the flame, and either modify the form of the flame, which is essential in light-house lamps, or, secondly, it would cause the chimney-bracket to rise so high as to cut off the rays of light from the lower part of the lens in which the burner is placed. The action of the Commissioner in rejecting the second claim must, therefore, be reversed, and in other respects his decision is affirmed. '
Let there be a decree for the petitioner that the Commissioner issue a patent granting to the petitioner the following claim:
2. A Fresnel burner having a vertically-adjustable cylindrical deflector located in the air-space between the wick-tube and the chimney-holder, whereby the inner current of air is thrown into the flame at its most advantageous zone, and the outer current is drawn up along the surface of the chimney and injected into the flame above the inner current.