Opinion ID: 1550999
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: 828 The Sintering Pan Patent.

Text: As this was issued in July, 1914, the time is shorter, something over 9 years. Nevertheless, through all that period the infringement was open and known, and it cannot be even plausibly urged that the interference proceedings had any relation to this patent. So far as concerns the accounting, 9 years may be quite as good as 13; but as the patent has not expired, and the question would arise whether the bar extends to an injunction as well, we do not rest our decision upon the delay. Although the disclosure is of an up draft pan, the patentee intended it to be operated by a down draft as well. Nevertheless, claim 4 seems to us limited by the feature, means for positively restraining the ore particles from agitation. In view of the specifications, this element comprises more than the earlier one in the same claim, a holder    arranged to support a layer or stratum of the mass. It refers to the top plate, which the defendant does not use. Claim 3 has not this feature, and the defendant infringes, except for the fact that what passes through the support is the product of combustion, and not its supporter. This is a narrow construction, which we should scarcely accept, were it not necessary to do so in order to save the claim. We think it is necessary, however, if it is to escape anticipation by Eldred's patent, 885,328. This was not, it is true, for sintering in the sense that Dwight used it, but it was for a closely analogous purpose, roasting a sulphide of lead, galena, or similar sulphide ores. The use for which the apparatus was intended is irrelevant, if it could be employed without change for the purposes of the patent; the statute authorizes the patenting of machines, not of their uses. So far as we can see, the disclosed apparatus could be used for sintering without any change whatever, except to reverse the fans, a matter of operation. If the hood, 4, was lifted there would remain the shallow converter, 1, the exact equivalent of Dwight's receptacle, 24, with a perforate false bottom, 3,  again the equivalent of Dwight's perforated partition, 25. Below the false bottom is a chamber, 9,  corresponding to Dwight's lower chamber, 25.  The converter or receptacle is mounted on trunnions, and the air enters, or the products of combustion leave, this chamber through a passage in one of the trunnions. How there could be a more entire fac simile of the apparatus we cannot see. It is true that the valves which connect with the pipe, 11, must be closed, but, once that be done, if the fans are operated to draw air through the layer of the ore to be roasted or sintered, the apparatus would work precisely as Dwight's, if the defendant is to infringe. This would not be true if the air was sucked into the chamber, 9, for then a top plate would be necessary. We do not, therefore, suggest that the patent in suit is invalid if the claims be confined to an up draft, though otherwise they would be. We prefer to say that claim three must be so limited, and that it is not, therefore, infringed. The decree is affirmed as to this patent.