Case Name: KENNEDY v. CHICAGO CITY RY. CO. et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1893-05-10
Citations: 56 F. 845
Docket Number: No. 63
Parties: KENNEDY v. CHICAGO CITY RY. CO. et al.
Judges: Before WOODS. Circuit Judge, and BUNK and BAKER, District Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 56
Pages: 845–845

Head Matter:
KENNEDY v. CHICAGO CITY RY. CO. et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
May 10, 1893.)
No. 63.
1. Patents ron Inventions — Boilers—Inbmungumknt.
Tlie third claim of letters patent No. 224,685, issued February 17, 1880, to Hazelton & Kennedy, for a new and improved sectional boiler, consisting of the combination of horizontal hot-water pipes and steam pipes set inside of a lire chamber, with vertical drums and mud drum set outside of the fire chamber, W, covers merely the particular combination therein described, and is not infringed by a device consisting of a “porcupine” boiler, having a central standpipe, in which numerous hollow tubes are inserted so as to radiate horizontally, and having three larger tubes riveted to the standpipe, and extending horizontally through Hie brickwork surrounding the fire chamber. 50 Fed. Itep. 190, affirmed.
3. Same — Boiler Deflectors -Novelty--Patentarle Invention.
betters patent No. 349,720, issued September 28, 1886, to Edward S. T. Kennedy, for an improvement in boiler deflectors consisting' of the combination of a ‘porcupine” boiler and its jacket with horizontal flame deflectors of segmental form, placed within the combustion chamber in position for protecting the exposed ends of the Lubes, and deflecting the heated products of combustion towards the boiler cylinder, are void for want of novelty and patentable invention. 50 Fed. Rep. 196, affirmed.
Appeal from, the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.
Bill by Edward 8. T. Kennedy against the Chicago City Railway Company and others to restrain the alleged infringement of certain patents. Decree for defendants. Complainant appeals.
Affirmed.
Banning, Banning & Paysen, for appellant.
Bond, Adams & "Pickard, for appellees.
Before WOODS. Circuit Judge, and BUNK and BAKER, District Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We concur in the conclusions of the circuit court as stated in the opinion reported in 50 Fed. Rep. 196. The decree, therefore, should be affirmed, with costs, and it is so ordered.