Letters patent No. 58,294, granted to George W. Richardson
September 25, 1866, for an improvement in steam safety valves, are
valid.
Under the claim of that patent namely,
"A safety valve with the circular or annular flange or lip
c
c, constructed in the manner, or substantially in the manner,
shown, so as to operate as and for the purpose herein
described,"
the patentee is entitled to cover a valve in which are combined
an initial area, an additional area, a huddling chamber beneath the
additional area, and a strictured orifice leading from the huddling
chamber to the open air, the orifice being proportioned to the
strength of the spring, as directed.
Richardson was the first person who made a safety valve which,
while it automatically relieved the pressure of steam in the
boiler, did not, in effecting
Page 113 U. S. 158
that result, reduce the pressure to such an extent as to make
the use of the relieving apparatus practically impossible because
of the expenditure of time and fuel necessary to bring up the steam
again to the proper working standard.
His valve was the first which had the strictured orifice to
retard the escape of the steam and enable the valve to open with
increasing power against the spring and close suddenly, with small
loss of pressure in the boiler.
The direction given in the patent that the flange or lip is to
be separated from the valve seat by about one sixty-fourth of an
inch for an ordinary spring, with less space for a strong spring
and more space for a weak spring, to regulate the escape of steam
as required, is a sufficient description as matter of law, and it
is not shown to be insufficient as a matter of fact.
Letters patent No. 85,963, granted to said Richardson January
19, 1869, for an improvement in safety valves for steam boilers or
generators, are valid.
Under the claim of that patent, namely
"The combination of the surface beyond the seat of the safety
valve, with the means herein described for regulating or adjusting
the area of the passage for the escape of steam, substantially as
and for the purpose described,"
the patentee is entitled to cover the combination with the
surface of the huddling chamber, and the strictured orifice, of a
screw ring to be moved up or down to obstruct such orifice more or
less in the manner described.
The patents of Richardson are infringed by a valve which
produces the same effects in operation by the means described in
Richardson's claims, although the valve proper is an annulus and
the extended surface is a disc inside of the annulus, the
Richardson valve proper being a disc and the extended surface an
annulus surrounding the disc, and although the valve proper has two
ground joints, and only the steam which passes through one of them
goes through the stricture, while, in the Richardson valve, all the
steam which passes into the air goes through the stricture, and
although the huddling chamber is at the center instead of the
circumference, and is in the seat of the valve, under the head,
instead of in the head, and the stricture is at the circumference
of the seat of the valve instead of being at the circumference of
the head.
The fact that the prior patented valves were not used and the
speedy and extensive adoption of Richardson's valve support the
conclusion as to the novelty of the latter.
Suits in equity having been begun in 1879 for the infringement
of the two patents, and the circuit court having dismissed the
bills, this Court in reversing the decrees after the first patent
had expired but not the second, awarded accounts of profits and
damages as to both patents, and a perpetual injunction as to the
second patent.
The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the Court.
Page 113 U. S. 159
MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.
On the 27th of May, 1879, the Consolidated Safety valve Company,
a Connecticut corporation, brought a suit in equity in the Circuit
Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts
against the Crosby Steam Gage and Valve Company, a Massachusetts
corporation, for the infringement of letters patent No. 58,294,
granted to George W. Richardson September 25, 1866, for an
improvement in steam safety valves. The specification of the patent
is as follows:
"Be it known that I, George W. Richardson, of the City of Troy,
in the County of Renesselaer, in the State of New York, have
invented a new and useful improvement on a safety valve for steam
generators, and I do hereby declare that the following is a full,
clear, and exact description of the construction and operation of
the same, reference being had to the annexed drawings, making a
part of this specification, in which Fig. 1 is an end view of my
improved safety valve and its seat, as seen from the bottom; Fig. 2
is an end view of the valve alone, as seen from the bottom; Fig. 3
is a vertical section at
x x, Fig. 1, of the valve and
seat in position; Fig. 4 is a vertical section at
y y,
Fig. 2, of the valve alone. Similar colors and letters of reference
indicate corresponding parts in the several figures.
A A,
is the head of the safety valve;
B B B B are wings to
guide the valve into its seat
E E;
c c is a
circular or annular flange or lip, extending over, slightly below,
and fitting loosely around the outer edge of the valve seat
E
E;
D D is a circular or annular chamber into which
the steam immediately passes when the valve lifts from its seat at
the ground joint
F F;
E E is the valve seat;
F F is the ground joint of the valve and seat;
P
is the countersink or center upon which the point of the stud
extending from the scale lever rests in the usual manner. The
nature of my invention consists in increasing the area of the head
of the common safety valve outside of its ground joint and
terminating it in such a way as to form an increased resisting
surface against which the steam escaping
Page 113 U. S. 160
from the generator shall act with additional force after it has
lifted the valve from its seat at the ground joint, and so, by
overcoming the rapidly increasing resistance of the spring or
scales, insure the lifting of the valve still higher, thus
affording so certain and free a passage for the steam to escape as
effectually to prevent the bursting of the boiler or generator even
when the steam is shut off and the damper left open."
image:a
"To enable others skilled in the art of make and use my
invention, I will proceed to describe its construction and
operation. To the head of the common safety valve, indicated by all
that portion of Fig. 2 lying within the second circle from the
common center, I add what is indicated by all that portion lying
outside of the said circle, in about the proportion shown in the
figure. A transverse vertical section of this added portion
Page 113 U. S. 161
is indicated, in Fig. 4, by those portions of the figure lying
outside of the dotted lines
p p,
p p, while all
that portion lying within the dotted lines
p p,
p
p indicates a transverse vertical section of the common safety
valve alone. This increased area may be made by adding to a safety
valve already in use or by casting the whole entire. I terminate
this addition to the head of the valve with a circular or annular
flange or lip
c c, which projects beyond the valve seat
E, E, Fig. 3, and extends slightly below its outer edge,
fitting loosely around it, and forming the circular or annular
chamber
D D, whose transverse section, shown in the
figure, may be of any desirable form or size. This flange or lip
c, c, fitting loosely around the valve seat
E E,
is separated from it by about 1/64 of an inch, for an ordinary
spring or balance. For a strong spring or balance, this space
should be diminished, and for a weak spring or balance it should be
increased, to regulate the escape of the steam as required. Instead
of having the flange or lip
c c project beyond and extend
below and around the outer edge of the valve seat, as shown in Fig.
3, a similar result may be obtained by having the valve seat itself
project beyond the outer edge of the valve head, and terminating it
with a circular or annular flange or lip, extending slightly above,
and fitting loosely around, the outer edge of the flange or lip
c c of the valve head; but I consider the construction
shown in Fig. 3 preferable. With my improved safety valve,
constructed as now described, and attached to the generator in the
usual way, the steam, escaping in the direction indicated by the
arrows in Fig. 3, first lifts the valve from its seat at the ground
joint
F F and then, passing into the annular chamber
D
D, acts against the increased surface of the valve head, and
by this means, together with its reaction produced by being thrown
down wards upon the valve seat
E E, it overcomes the
rapidly increasing resistance of the spring or balance, lifts the
valve still higher, and escapes freely into the open air until the
pressure in the generator is reduced to the degree desired, when
the valve will be immediately closed by the tension of the spring
or balance. The escape of the steam by means of this safety valve
is so certain and free that the pressure of the steam in the
generator or boiler will
Page 113 U. S. 162
not increase beyond the point or degree at which the value is
set to blow off."
The claim of the patent is this:
"What I claim as my improvement and desire to secure by letters
patent is a safety valve with the circular or annular flange or lip
c c constructed in the manner shown, so as to operate as
and for the purpose herein described."
On the 2d of June, 1879, the same plaintiff brought a suit in
equity, in the same court against the same defendant for the
infringement of letters patent No. 85,963, granted to the same
George W. Richardson, January 19, 1869, for an improvement in
safety valves for steam boilers or generators. So much of the
specification of the patent as is involved in this suit is as
follows:
"Be it known that I, George William Richardson, of Troy, in the
State of New York, have invented certain new and useful
improvements in safety valves for steam boilers or generators, and
I do hereby declare that the following is a full, clear, and exact
description thereof, reference being had to the accompanying
drawings making part of this specification, in which Fig. 1 is a
vertical section of the safety valve and its connections, taken in
the plane of the axis of the valve stem; Fig. 2, a horizontal
section taken in the plane of the line
A a of Fig. 1, and
Fig. 3 another horizontal section at the line
B, b of Fig.
1. Fig. 4 is a vertical section taken in the plane of the axis of
the valve, representing a modification of my said invention, and
Fig. 5 a horizontal section thereof, taken in the plane of the line
C c of Fig. 4. My said invention relates to improvements
in the invention described in letters patent granted to me, and
bearing date the 25th day of September, 1866, which said patented
invention relates to a means for providing a more free escape for
the steam than could be obtained by safety valves as constructed
prior thereto, and to insure the keeping of the valve open until
the pressure of the steam in the boiler or generator falls below
the pressure which was required to open it, the said means so
patented consisting in forming the valve with a surface outside of
the ground joint, for the escaping steam to act against, the said
surface being surrounded by
Page 113 U. S. 163
a projecting or overlapping lip, rim, or flange, leaving a
narrow escape for the steam when the valve is opened, but which
although of greater diameter than the valve seat, by reason of"
image:b
Page 113 U. S. 164
"the said lap, presents a less area of opening for the escape of
steam than is produced at the valve seat, so that the steam which
escapes through the area between the valve shall exert pressure
against the said surrounding surface, and thereby not only open the
valve completely, but hold it up until the pressure of the steam in
the boiler falls below the pressure by which the valve was
opened."
"One part of my present invention relates to a means for
regulating or adjusting the area of the aperture for the escape of
the steam after acting on the said surface outside of the valve
seat, so that the valve may be set to close at any desired pressure
below the pressure which will open it, and this part of my
invention consists in making the aperture or apertures for the
escape of the steam, after it has acted on the said surface outside
of the valve seat, adjustable. . . ."
"I will first describe the preferred mode of application of my
said invention, as represented in Figs. 1, 2, and 3 of the
accompanying drawings. In the said figures,
a represents
the valve seat, which is to be attached to a steam boiler or
generator in the usual or any other suitable manner, and which is
formed, in the usual manner, with a beveled seat from the valve
b, fitted thereto by what is well known as a 'ground
joint.' . . ."
"It is desirable that so soon as the pressure of the steam in
the boiler or generator reaches the pressure at which it should be
relieved, the safety valve should open wide for the free escape of
steam, and that the valve should remain open until the pressure in
the boiler is reduced below the pressure by which the valve was
opened, and that it should be so organized that the engineer may be
able to adjust it so that it will close at any desired number of
pounds pressure below the pressure at which it was opened. To
accomplish these results was the main object of my said
invention."
"To the upper surface of the valve, I secure a cap plate or
annulus
m, formed with a downward-projecting flange
n at its outer periphery, leaving an annular space
o all around between the outer periphery of the valve and
the inner periphery of the flange
n of the said cap. And
the upper surface of the valve seat
a is extended all
around, a little beyond the outer
Page 113 U. S. 165
periphery of the flange
n of the cap, leaving an
annular surface
p, surrounded by an upward-projecting rim
q, the plane of the upper edge of which, when the valve is
closed, extends a short distance above the plane of the lower edge
of the flange
n of the cap. The said cap plate
m
is connected with the top of the valve by studs
r r, or
cast with it, in such manner as to leave an open space
s
between the two, for the passage of steam to the central aperture
t in the cap, through which steam can escape when the
valve is lifted from its a threaded ring
u that can be, by
a projecting cylindrical flange, threaded on the outside, to which
is fitted a threaded ring
u that can be turned up or down
to any desired elevation, and there secured by a set screw
v. The disk-like projection
f on the valve rod or
stem
e extends over the said central aperture
t
in the cap plate
m and at such an elevation that the upper
edge of the adjustable ring can be set in contact with it, or let
down so far below it as to leave sufficient space for the free
escape of steam."
"From the foregoing it will be seen that, when the pressure of
steam in the boiler or generator becomes sufficient to lift the
valve from its seat, it acts against the surface of the annular
space
o between the bevel of the valve seat and the
downward-projecting flange
n of the cap, to assist in
lifting and holding up the valve, particularly when the valve is
borne down by the tension of a spring, which presents an increasing
resistance as the valve is lifted. If the projecting rim
q
were in the same plane with the lower edge of the flange
n
the diameter of these parts being greater than that of the valve
seat, on the lifting of the valve and cap, the area of the opening
between the flange
n of the cap, and the projecting rim
q would be greater than the area of the opening between
the valve and its seat, just in proportion as the diameter of the
one is greater than the other, and the steam escaping from the
valve would pass unchecked between the flange
n and rim
q, and would not exert any force against the surface of
the annular space
o; but, as the rim
q extends
above the lower edge of the flange
n of the cap plate, it
follows that the aperture between the valve and its seat, by the
lifting of the valve, is
Page 113 U. S. 166
always greater than the aperture between the flange
n
and the rim
q, and hence the escaping steam, by its
elastic force, will act against the surface of the annular space
o to assist in lifting and holding up the valve until the
pressure in the boiler or generator falls below the pressure by
which the valve was first opened. The difference between the
pressure against which the valve will close and the pressure by
which it will be opened will depend upon the distance between the
outer periphery of the flange
n of the cap plate and the
inner periphery of the projecting rim
q. To render this
adjustable, the area of the aperture for the escape of steam beyond
the valve seat must be adjustable. This is effected by the raising
or lowering of the ring
v. If it be set to its lowest
position, the steam escaping from the valve will be free to escape
between the top of the valve and the cap, through the central
aperture, and thence between the upper edge of the ring
u
and the disk
f without materially aiding to lift or hold
up the valve; but, by setting the ring
u nearer to the
under surface of the disk
f, and thereby reducing the
space for the escape of steam, it will be caused to act, by its
elastic force, against the annular space
o of the cap
plate, and thus assist in lifting the valve and holding it up."
"I have described and represented this as the simplest mode of
adjusting the area of the aperture for the escape of the steam
after it passes the valve seat, but it will be obvious that the
same result may be attained by equivalent means, such, for
instance, as making the ring
q in adjustable segments, so
that its diameter can be increased or diminished; but this would be
more complicated than the mode first and fully described, and it
will also be obvious that the devices for holding up the valve may
be inverted, as represented in Figs. 4 and 5 of the accompanying
drawings, in which
a' is the valve seat, and
b'
the valve, with its beveled ground joint, the valve seat
a' having a flat annular surface
c', beyond the
bevel, and the valve an annular surface
d', with a
downward-projecting flange
e', the lower edge of which,
when the valve is closed, extends a little below the plane of the
surface
c' of the valve seat and a narrow annular space
being left for the escape of steam between the inner
Page 113 U. S. 167
periphery of the said flange and the outer periphery of the
valve seat
a', as set forth in my patent of September 25,
1866."
The claim of the patent is as follows:
"What I claim as new and desire to secure by letters patent is
the combination of the surface beyond the seat of the safety valve,
with the means herein described for regulating or adjusting the
area of the passage for the escape of steam, substantially as and
for the purpose described."
The answers in the two suits set up want of novelty, and cite,
as anticipating patents, three English patents: one to Charles
Ritchie, No. 12,078, August 3, 1848; one to James Webster, No.
1,955, July 12, 1857, and one to William Hartley, No. 2,205, August
19, 1857; also an English publication made in 1858, called "The
Artizan." Infringement is denied, and it is averred that the valves
which the defendant makes and sells are the inventions of George H.
Crosby, and are described in two patents granted to him, and owned
by the defendant: one, No. 159,157, dated January 26, 1875, and the
other, No. 160,167, dated February 23, 1875. The same proofs were
taken in the two suits, and they were heard together in the circuit
court. In each suit, that court made a decree dismissing the bill,
7 F. 768, and from each decree the plaintiff has appealed.
When Richardson applied for his patent of 1866, his claim read
thus:
"What I claim as my improvement and desire to secure by letters
patent is increasing the area of the head of the common safety
valve, outside of the ground joint
F F and terminating
this addition with the circular or annular flange or lip
c,
c, constructed in the manner, or substantially in the manner,
shown, so as to operate as and for the purpose herein
described."
This claim was rejected as defective because not for a device,
and it was amended to read as granted.
In this application for the patent of 1869, there were two
claims. The second related to means for preventing the guides and
stem of the valve from binding, and was rejected as not new, and
stricken out, though the descriptive matter on which it was founded
was retained. The first claim, as applied for,
Page 113 U. S. 168
was this:
"What I claim as new and desire to secure by letters patent is
combining with the surface beyond the beveled, or equivalent, seat
of a safety valve, the means herein described, or the equivalent
thereof, for regulating or adjusting the area of the passage for
the escape of steam beyond the bevel, or equivalent, seat,
substantially as and for the purpose described."
This claim was amended, on suggestions made by the Patent
Office, to read as granted.
The view taken by the circuit court in dismissing the bills was
that some valves had been made before 1866 which embodied the same
general principle as Richardson's and were of some value, operating
through the expansive power of steam exerted upon an additional
chamber outside of the ground joint, and that what Richardson did
was to so regulate the action of the chamber outside of the ground
joint, by a crack or opening between the lip of the valve and its
main body, that the steam would be confined or huddled, when it
sought to escape from the chamber, and so the valve would be held
up just long enough, and could fall rapidly before too much steam
was lost. But the cases went off on the question of infringement,
and the circuit court found that while the defendant's valve
employed an additional surface to lift the valve as soon as it
began to blow, and the pressure was regulated in part by a
stricture, it differed from the plaintiff's in that the additional
area was not outside of the ground joint, but inside and was not
acted on independently of the valve itself, but was a part of it,
and the escaping steam did not act at all by impact, but wholly by
expansion. The conclusion was that, as Richardson was not the first
to apply the idea of an additional area or of a stricture, he could
not enjoin a valve which resembled his only in adopting such
general ideas, and that his claims did not cover a valve having the
mode of operation of the defendant's.
Edward H. Ashcroft, as assignee of William Naylor, obtained
reissued letters patent of the United States, No. 3,727, dated
November 9, 1869, on the surrender of letters patent No. 58,962
issued to said Naylor October 16, 1866, for an improvement in
safety valves. Ashcroft brought a suit in equity, in the Circuit
Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts,
Page 113 U. S. 169
against the Boston and Lowell Railroad Company for the
infringement of reissue No. 3,727. The infringement consisted in
the use of valves constructed according to the patent of 1866 to
Richardson. The court dismissed the bill, 5 Off.Gaz. 725, 1 Holmes
366; 1 Bann. & A. 215, and, on an appeal to this Court by the
plaintiff, the decree was affirmed.
97 U. S. 97 U.S.
189. In view of an English patent, No. 1,038, granted to Charles
Beyer, April 25, 1863, it was held by this Court that Naylor was
not the first person who devised means for using the recoil action
of steam to assist in lifting the valve, or who invented the
combination, in a spring safety valve, of an overhanging downward
curved lip with an annular recess surrounding the valve seat into
which steam is deflected as it issues between the valve and its
seat. In speaking of the invention of Richardson, as described in
his patent of 1866, this Court said:
"His invention, as he describes it, consists in increasing the
area of the head of the common safety valve outside of its ground
joint, and terminating it in such a way as to form an increased
resisting surface, against which the steam escaping from the
generator shall act with additional force after lifting the valve
from its seat at the ground joint, and so, by overcoming the
rapidly increasing resistance of the spring or scales, will insure
the lifting of the valve still higher, thus affording so certain
and free a passage for the steam to escape as effectually to
prevent the bursting of the boiler or generator even when the steam
is shut off and the damper left open. Safety valves previously in
use were not suited to accomplish what was desired, which was to
open for the purpose of relieving the boiler, and then to close
again at a pressure as nearly as possible equal to that at which
the valve opened. Sufficient appears to show that Richardson so far
accomplished that purpose as to invent a valve which would open at
the given pressure to which it was adjusted and relieve the boiler,
and then close again when the pressure was reduced about two and
one-half pounds to the inch, even when the pressure in the
generator was one hundred pounds to the same extent of surface,
which made it, in practice, a useful spring safety valve, as proved
by the fact that it went almost immediately into general use. . .
.
Page 113 U. S. 170
When the valve opens, the steam expands and flows into the
annular space around the around joint. Its free escape, which might
otherwise be too free, is prevented by a stricture or narrow space
formed by the outer edge of the lip and the valve seat. By these
means the steam escaping from the valve is made to act by its
expansive force upon an additional area outside of the device as
ordinarily constructed to assist in raising the valve."
On these views it was held by this Court that although important
functions, not very dissimilar in the effect produced, were
performed by the two valves there in controversy, the means used
and the mode of operation were substantially different in material
respects.
In the present case, the defendant has introduced in evidence
the before-named English patents to Ritchie, Webster, and Hartley
and the English patent to William Naylor, No. 1,830, granted July
1, 1863, and also letters patent of the United States, No. 10,243,
granted to Henry Waterman, November 15, 1853, and the reissue of
the same, No. 2,675, granted to him July 9, 1867. In view of all
these patents and of the state of the art, it appears that
Richardson was the first person who described and introduced into
use a safety valve which, while it automatically relieved the
pressure of steam in the boiler, did not, in effecting that result,
reduce the pressure to such an extent as to make the use of the
relieving apparatus practically impossible because of the
expenditure of time and fuel necessary to bring up the steam again
to the proper working standard. His valve, while it automatically
gives relief before the pressure becomes dangerously great,
according to the point at which the valve is set to blow off,
operates so as to automatically arrest with promptness the
reduction of pressure when the boiler is relieved. His patent of
1866 gave a moderate range of pressure, as the result of the
proportions there specified, and his patent of 1869 furnished a
means of regulating that range of pressure, by a screw ring, within
those narrow limits which are essential in the use of so subtle an
agent as steam.
In regard to all the above patents, adduced against Richardson's
patent of 1866, it may be generally said that they
Page 113 U. S. 171
never were, in their day and before the date of that patent or
of Richardson's invention, known or recognized as producing any
such result as his apparatus of that patent produces as above
defined. Likenesses in them in physical structure to the apparatus
of Richardson in important particulars may be pointed out, but it
is only as the anatomy of a corpse resembles that of the living
being. The prior structures never effected the kind of result
attained by Richardson's apparatus, because they lacked the thing
which gave success. They did not have the retarding stricture which
gave the lifting opportunity to the huddled steam, combined with
the quick falling of the valve after relief had come. Taught by
Richardson and by the use of his apparatus, it is not difficult for
skilled mechanics to take the prior structures and so arrange and
use them as to produce more or less of the beneficial results first
made known by Richardson, but, prior to 1866, though these old
patents and their descriptions were accessible, no valve was made
producing any such results. Richardson's patent of 1866 states that
the addition to the head of the valve terminates in an annular lip,
which fits loosely around the valve seat and is separated from it
by about one sixty-fourth of an inch for an ordinary spring, and a
less space for a strong spring, and a greater space for a weak
spring, forming an annular chamber and regulating the escape of the
steam; that the steam, when the valve is lifted, passes beyond the
valve seat and into the annular chamber and acts against the
increased surface of the valve head, and thus overcomes the
increasing resistance of the spring due to its compression and
lifts the valve higher, and the steam escapes freely into the open
air, until the pressure is sufficiently reduced, when the spring
immediately closes the valve. It is not shown that, before 1866,
any known valve produced this result. On the contrary, Richardson
testifies that for about twenty years before 1866, he was
acquainted with safety valves in practical use by working in the
locomotive repair shops of railroad companies, part of the time as
foreman and as a locomotive engineer, and that he never before his
invention knew, in practical use or on sale, of any spring-loaded
safety valve capable of opening to relieve the boiler when the
working
Page 113 U. S. 172
pressure was exceeded, and of automatically closing with a small
loss of working pressure. He also says that he was in England for
about four months in 1873, bringing his valve to the notice of
officials in the shops of some of the largest railroad companies
(his valve being one especially useful on locomotive engines on
railroads); that while he was in England, he found no man who
professed to be acquainted with, or to have heard of, a safety
valve which would automatically open and relieve the boiler at a
predetermined working pressure and automatically close when such
working pressure had been slightly reduced, or who admitted that
such a valve could be made until he had seen Richardson's valve
work; that the master mechanics at the shops named did not believe
he could make a valve close within 25 pounds of the blowing-off
point; that he showed them the working of his valve with no excess
beyond working pressure, and with but from 3 to 5 pounds reduction
from a pressure of 130 pounds per square inch in the boiler; that
he did not hear in England of any of the Ritchie, Webster, or
Hartley valves, but heard the Naylor valve blow, and that when it
blew, the steam rose several pounds above the point where it
commenced to blow, and it did not close promptly, tightly, or
suddenly. There is no evidence to contradict or vary the effect of
this testimony.
Thomas Adams, of Manchester, England, who has spent a lifetime
in the manufacture and practical working of safety valves,
testifies that the Ritchie and Webster valves have never been in
use practically in England, and the Hartley only in two or three
cases, when it was a failure; that he himself has made and applied
in England about 15,000 of Richardson's valves; that if loaded at
120 pounds per square inch, his valve returns to its seat with a
very small loss of pressure; that the Beyer valve, loaded at 120
pounds, reduces the pressure 30 pounds before returning to its
seat, and that Naylor's has been superseded by Richardson's. It
appears to have been easy enough to make a safety valve which would
relieve the boiler, but the problem was to make one which, while it
opened with increasing power in the steam against the increasing
resistance of a spring, would close suddenly
Page 113 U. S. 173
and not gradually, by the pressure of the same spring against
the steam. This was a problem of the reconciliation of antagonisms,
which so often recurs in mechanics and without which practically
successful results are not attained. What was needed was a narrow
stricture to hold back the escaping steam and secure its expansive
force inside of the lip, and thus aid the direct pressure of the
steam from the boiler in lifting the valve against the increasing
tension of the spring, with the result that after only a small but
a sufficient reduction in the boiler pressure, the compressed
spring would, by its very compression, obtain the mastery and close
the valve quickly. This problem was solved by Richardson, and never
before. His patent of 1869 describes the arrangement and operation
of the whole apparatus, with the adjustable ring, thus: when the
pressure of the steam lifts the valve, the steam acts against the
surface of an annular space between the bevel of the valve seat and
the downward-projecting flange of the cap plate, to assist in
holding up the valve against the increasing resistance of the
spring. The aperture between the valve and its seat is always
greater than that between the flange and the upward-projecting rim,
and thus the steam in the annular space assists in holding up the
valve till the boiler pressure falls below that at which the valve
opened. The difference between the closing pressure and the opening
pressure depends on the distance between the flange and the rim.
There is a central aperture in the cap through which the steam
escapes when the valve is lifted, which is surrounded by a
projecting cylindrical flange, threaded on the outside, to which is
fitted a threaded ring, which can be turned up or down, and secured
by a set screw. By this means, the area of the aperture for the
escape of steam beyond the valve seat is adjustable, the space
being largest when the ring is down and smallest when the ring is
up.
Ritchie's patent, in speaking of his valve, says:
"This valve is weighted by a helical spring
i (shown at
Fig. 2), of sufficient power according to the required pressure of
the steam, and when it is intended to be used as a reserve safety
valve, I place the spring around that part of the stem below the
valve -- that is to say, within the boiler -- as shown at Fig. 2.
The
Page 113 U. S. 174
advantage of this form of construction of valve over the
ordinary valve is as follows: As soon as the pressure of the steam
raises the valve from its seat, the flange
h, being
exposed to the pressure of the steam, presents an increased
surface, which compensates for the increasing resistance of the
helical spring
i until the valve has been raised to a
height equal to the area of the steam way, when it allows the steam
or vapor to escape freely."
In an article in the Artizan, published in England in July,
1858, signed by Ritchie, and referring to his patent of 1848, it is
said of his valve:
"The top area being made double that of the underside or steam
way, such a valve would quickly reduce the pressure in the boiler
to half that at which the valve lifted, and so also of other
proportions. Hence it is chiefly suited for a reserved valve."
This shows the existence of the very evil which Richardson
remedied. Ritchie's patent and publication say nothing about any
stricture.
The evidence in the present case shows satisfactorily that
valves made in conformity with the measurements of the drawing of
Ritchie's patent do, in practice, reduce the pressure in the boiler
to such an extent, after that pressure is properly relieved and
before they close, as to involve great loss of time and consumption
of fuel before the initial pressure is restored. The experimental
valves produced by the defendant as structures made according to
Ritchie's patent vary from the dimensions of his drawing, and the
variations are those which result from the instructions given by
Richardson in his patents. Ritchie gives no information how to make
a valve work at a predetermined pressure, or how to make it work
with a small range of difference between the opening and closing
pressures, or how to proportion the strength of the spring and the
size of the stricture to each other. The same thing is true of the
Webster and the Hartley patents.
The Webster patent shows a huddling chamber and a stricture. But
the evidence shows that valves made with the proportions shown in
the drawings of Webster work with so large a loss of boiler
pressure, before closing, as to be practically and economically
worthless Webster's patent describes a means of making the area for
the escape of steam adjustable consisting
Page 113 U. S. 175
in adjusting up and down, on a smooth valve stem, a sliding
collar or flange and fixing it in place by a set screw. But it does
not show the screw ring of Richardson, with its minute delicacy of
adjustment and action. Nothing further need be said as to the
Hartley valve or the Beyer valves.
The original patent to Waterman was issued in 1853. His
attention had been turned to the subject of safety valves for
locomotive engines. He invented what is described in that patent,
but he testifies that before 1866 he never saw a safety valve
capable of keeping the pressure at a point not above working
pressure and of relieving the boiler with but a small loss of
pressure; that his valve would let the steam down about 15 pounds,
and was not practical for an ordinary locomotive, and that the
Richardson valve, when introduced, went at once into general use.
The Waterman valve had a supplemental surface on which the steam
acted to aid in the raising of the valve, and this was shown in the
drawing of Waterman's original patent, but the specification did
not describe it. Waterman's original patent did no show the use of
a spring, and prior to its reissue, his valve had not been made
with a spring. After Richardson obtained his patent of 1866, and
Waterman knew of Richardson's valve, they combined the interests in
their two patents, and the reissue of Waterman's was obtained, with
the cooperation of Richardson, he signing as a witness the
specification of the reissue. That specification, granted in 1867,
describes an overhanging part of the valve as increasing its area
outside of and beyond the ground joint and a concentric rim or
ledge, which directs the steam upward against such overhanging part
of the valve, so that the valve is assisted in rising. The
specification was drawn in view of Richardson's patent and valve,
and for the purpose of making a claim, which was then made, and
which was not in Waterman's original patent, to a combination of
the concentric rim or ledge with the overhanging part of the valve.
The specification states that the valve and its seat are so
constructed that the escaping steam will act on an increased area
of the valve after it has risen from its seat and strike the
overhanging or
Page 113 U. S. 176
projecting annular surface above and outside of and beyond the
ground joint. It also states that a proper modification of the
overhanging or projecting annular surface will modify the force of
the steam; that if such surface be large, the valve will be opened
suddenly and discharge so much steam that the pressure in the
boiler will be considerably reduced before the valve closes; that
such surface may be made so small that but little more than the
surplus steam will escape; that the success or efficiency of the
valve will depend on a proper proportion between the overhanging
annular surface and the concentric rim or ledge because, if a free
discharge of steam between them is allowed, the valve will not be
assisted in rising, and if the escape of steam is too small, the
valve will rise too easily and remain open too long, and the steam
will be so much reduced in pressure as seriously to impair the
economical and efficient action of the apparatus, and directions
are given as to the sizes of the overhanging part, and of the ledge
or rim, and of the opening, for a valve of a specified diameter
acting with a specified pressure of steam. Nothing of all this was
found in the specification of the original Waterman patent. It
therefore has no effect, as against Richardson's patent of 1866, to
destroy the validity of that patent.
If anything which Richardson did in respect to reissuing the
Waterman patent could in any event affect the rights of the present
plaintiff under either patent sued on -- as to which we express no
opinion -- it is sufficient to say that the present defendant
claims in its answers no benefit from any action of Richardson's in
respect to the Waterman patent as operating in its favor or inuring
to its benefit as an equitable defense in these suits.
Richardson is therefore entitled to cover, by the claim of his
patent of 1866, under the language
"a safety valve with the circular or annular flange or lip
c
c, constructed in the manner or substantially in the manner
shown, so as to operate as and for the purpose herein
described,"
a valve in which are combined an initial area, an additional
area, a huddling chamber beneath the additional area, and a
strictured orifice leading from the huddling chamber to the open
air, the orifice being
Page 113 U. S. 177
proportioned to the strength of the spring, as directed. The
direction given in the patent is that the flange or lip is to be
separated from the valve seat by about one sixty-fourth of an inch
for an ordinary spring, with less space for a strong spring and
more space for a weak spring, to regulate the escape of the steam
as required. As matter of law, this description is sufficient
within the rule laid down in
Wood v.
Underhill, 5 How. 1, and it is not shown to be
insufficient as a matter of fact.
Richardson is also entitled to cover, by the claim of his patent
of 1869, under the language,
"the combination of the surface beyond the seat of the safety
valve, with the means herein described, for regulating or adjusting
the area of the passage for the escape of steam, substantially as
and for the purpose described,"
the combination with the surface of the huddling chamber, and
the strictured orifice, of a screw ring, to be moved up or down to
obstruct such orifice more or less, in the manner described.
The Richardson patents have a disk valve, an annular huddling
chamber, an annular stricture at the outer extremity of the radii
from the center of the valve, an additional area which is radially
beyond the disk valve, and a cylindrical steam way. But before 1866
an annular form of safety valve was well known. Such a valve
necessarily requires an annular steam way. In the defendant's
valve, complainant's Exhibit A, the same effects in operation are
produced as in the Richardson valve by the means described in
Richardson's claims. In both structures the valve is held to its
seat by a spring so compressed as to keep the valve there until the
pressure inside of the boiler is sufficient to move the valve
against the pressure of the spring, so that the steam escapes
through the ground joint into a chamber covered by an extension of
the valve, in which chamber the steam acts expansively against the
extended surface and increases the pressure in opposition to the
increasing pressure of the spring, and assists in opening the valve
wider. This chamber in the defendant's valve has at its termination
substantially the same construction as Richardson's valve -- namely
a stricture which causes the steam to act by expansive
Page 113 U. S. 178
force against the extended surface of the valve, and in both
valves, after the pressure of the steam has been somewhat reduced
in the boiler, the closing movement is quickened as the valve nears
its seat in consequence of the reduced pressure of the steam on the
extended surface, and the valve comes suddenly to its seat. In the
Richardson valve, the valve proper is a disk and the extended
surface is an annulus surrounding the disk, while in the
defendant's valve the valve proper is an annulus and the extended
surface is a disk inside of the annulus. But this is a mere
interchange of form between the valve proper and the extended
surface, within the skill of an ordinary mechanic.
There is one structural difference between the two valves which
is now to be mentioned. In the Richardson valve, all the steam
which escapes into the open air escapes from the huddling chamber
through a stricture which is smaller than the aperture at the
ground joint. In the defendant's valve, the valve proper has two
ground joints, one at the inner periphery of the annulus and the
other at its outer periphery, and only a part of the steam --
namely that which passes through one of the ground joints -- passes
into the huddling chamber and then through the stricture, the other
part of the steam passing directly from the boiler into the air
through the other ground joint. But all of that part of the steam
which passes into the huddling chamber and under the extended
surface passes through the constriction at the extremity of such
chamber in both valves, the difference being only one of degree,
but with the same mode of operation.
In the Richardson patent of 1869, the stricture is regulated as
to size by an adjustable screw ring. In the defendant's valve,
there is a screw ring or sleeve, which closes the escape orifices
from the central chamber, more or less.
In the defendant's valve, the huddling chamber is at the center
instead of the circumference, and is in the seat of the valve under
the head, instead of in the head, and the stricture, instead of
being at the circumference of the head, is at the circumference of
the seat of the valve. But this is only the use of means equivalent
to those shown by Richardson, while the
Page 113 U. S. 179
mode of operation of the parts of the mechanism is the same in
their relation to each other, and the result is the same.
Richardson's invention brought to success what prior inventors
had essayed and partly accomplished. He used some things which had
been used before, but he added just that which was necessary to
make the whole a practically valuable and economical apparatus. The
fact that the known valves were not used, and the speedy and
extensive adoption of Richardson's valve, are facts in harmony with
the evidence that his valve contains just what the prior valves
lacked, and go to support the conclusion at which we have arrived
on the question of novelty. When the ideas necessary to success are
made known and a structure embodying those ideas is given to the
world, it is easy for the skillful mechanic to vary the form by
mechanism which is equivalent, and is therefore in a case of this
kind, an infringement.
Is follows from these views, that
The decrees of the circuit court must be reversed and each
case be remanded to that court with a direction to enter a decree
sustaining the validity of the patent sued on and decreeing
infringement and awarding an account of profits and damages as
prayed for, and to take such further proceedings as may be proper
and not inconsistent with this opinion, and with the further
direction, as to the suit brought on the patent of 1869, to grant a
perpetual injunction according to the prayer of the bill.