from the axle, which is esteemed to be a noteworthy improvement. The defendants insist that, inasmuch as the motor is hung by extensions to trunnions upon its opposite sides, it is not sleeved to the axle, because sleeving, as described in the patent, is by a rigid attachment; and that if the magnet is sleeved upon the axle it has no capacity of up and down movement relatively to the axle, except at the unsleeved end. This construction presupposes that Sprague's invention consisted in the details by which he attached his motor or his magnet to the axle. If it did so consist, the defendants are right, but the invention was more than a matter of form or detail. The part of the invention now under consideration consisted, as has been said, in utilizing the frame of the motor, and hanging it by its necessary extensions from the field magnet at one end to the axle; and, while it is true that the patentee showed a rigid extension, his claim did not tie up that part of the invention to rigidity. A jointed and a flexible extension is not only within the invention, but within the claim.

The defendants also say, in this part of the case, that the field magnet is required by claim 2 to be sleeved upon the axle, and that their magnet is not so sleeved because the trunnions from which the side arms extend are not parts of the field magnet, and the side arms which extend from the trunnions to the axle are not extensions from the field magnet. In the Sprague motor, the field magnet, by means of extensions from the pole pieces, is sleeved upon the axle, whereas in the defendants' motor extensions from the exterior shell, which is mechanically integral with the yoke of the magnet, are journaled or sleeved upon the axle. This supposed difference, which mainly results from the use of a different shape of magnet and of motor, is of an unsubstantial character with regard to infringement.

The next point is in regard to the use of the word "centered" in claim 6. The defendants say that "centering" means fixing upon a central point, and that the motion of the patented extension must be limited to the motion of the axle, whereas the arms of their U are yielding, and their motor swings between them. By the use of the word "center," a perfectly rigid union of axle and motor was not demanded, but it was intended that the center of the movement of the motor was always to be the car axle, and the defendants' motor is thus centered. Its yielding movement is in an arc of which the driving axle is the center, and therefore its driving gears retain the same relative position, which is the effect of the centering of the Sprague magnet, as stated in the extract from the specification which has already been quoted. The specification of the Short patent describes the movement of its motor as follows:

"Any yielding movement of the motor in either direction, either upwardly or downwardly, being in the arc of a circle of which the driving axle is the center and the supporting frame the radius, it follows that the driving gears will always retain the same relative positions, and be kept in perfect mesh throughout all adjustments and positions of the motor."

The various discussions by the defendants in regard to infringe ment, except the one in regard to sleeving by a rigid extension, are discussions in regard to words, and not in regard to things.

The

difference between a rigid attachment and a jointed and flexible attachment to the axle has a reality with relation to this invention which is lacking in the other alleged differences, but the difficulty with that part of the defendants' case is that the Short device is an improvement upon the Sprague invention, which was of a broader character than the defendants interpret it to have been.

Claim 9 requires a spring support for the axle end of the motor from the truck or body of the vehicle. The specification says that the springs, known as "springs M," extend to crossbars on the truck frame, or to the car body, in case no truck is used. The spring supports on the axle end of the defendants' motor are from the car axle. It is true that the car axle is held in the truck, but the claim made it imperative that the support for that end must be from the truck or body of the vehicle, and the specification describes the same method of construction. We think that claim 9 was not infringed.

The decree should be modified, with costs of this court to the appellants, by limiting the injunction and the accounting to claims 2 and 6; and the case is remanded to the circuit court, with directions to enter a modified decree in accordance with the foregoing opinion, with costs of that court.

UNION GAS-ENGINE CO. et al. v. DOAK. (Circuit Court, N. D. California.

May 10, 1898.)

No. 11,947.

1. PATENTS-SUBJECTS OF PATENT.

It is not the result attained which is patentable, but the device or mechanical means by which that result is secured.

2. SAME-ANALOGOUS USE.

There is no invention in adapting the prior devices for igniting gaslights by an electric spark, by what is known as the wiping or reciprocating movement, to the ignition of gas in the explosion chambers of gas engines. The changes required involve mere mechanical adaptations, obvious to the skilled workman.

8. SAME-GAS ENGINES.

The Barrett & Daly patent, No. 430,505, for an improvement in gas engines, consisting in mechanism for igniting the gas by means of an electric spark, is void, because of anticipation and want of novelty.

This was a suit in equity by the Union Gas-Engine Company Mora M. Barrett, and John F. Daly against John E. Doak for alleged infringement of a patent for an improvement in gas engines.

John H. Miller, for complainants.

John L. Boone, for defendant.

MORROW, Circuit Judge. This is a suit for the infringement of letters patent No. 430,505, issued on June 17, 1890, to Mora M. Barrett and John F. Daly. The Union Gas-Engine Company, one of the complainants, appears to be the successor in interest of all the rights, title, and interest of the Pacific Gas-Engine Company, to whom the patentees, Barrett and Daly, had assigned their patent. The patent was issued for a new and useful improvement in gas engines. The improvement consists in a device or mechanism for

igniting the gas used in gas engines, by means of an electric spark. In their specification, the patentees thus describe the invention:

"The present improvements are applied to gas engines of the upright kind, and they relate to novel valve mechanism for operating the exhaust valve, to a novel electric ignitor on an open circuit for exploding the charges of gas in the cylinder, and, in connection therewith, a current interrupter adapted to break the circuit at every alternate revolution of the crank shaft."

Then follows a description of the improvements with reference to the drawings accompanying the specification.

That part which relates to the claims alleged to have been infringed is as follows:

"S and T are the two electrodes or contact points of the ignitor. The part S is a flexible yielding tongue of metal fixed at one end in an insulated plug, S*, and setting through the side of the cylinder into the space above the piston; and the part T is a finger or projection on a short rock shaft, T*, that sets through and has movement in an insulated bearing, T2, in the side of the cylinder. Rocking movement is given to this shaft by an arm, U, on the outer end of an eccentric rod, V, and an eccentric, V*, fast on the crank shaft. The finger, T, sets in line with and in close relation to the free end of the yielding tongue. By the rocking movement of the shaft it is pressed against and drawn over the end of the tongue with a wiping movement, first in a downward direction, and then in an upward direction, with equal pressure in both movements. One wire from the battery being connected at X to the rock shaft, and the other one, at Y*, to the tongue, the circuit is closed, and then broken, by the contact of the rock-shaft finger with the tongue, and the subsequent separation when the finger clears the tongue. As thus constructed for operation, this ignitor is found to produce a better quality of spark than is usually made by contact points or electrodes that work with a simple contact without a rubbing or wiping movement of one upon the other. The yielding tongue also retains its shape for a much longer time than the tongues or springs in other ignitors of the kind where the contact and pressure of one part against the other is from one side or in one direction only. In connection with these parts, provision is made for cutting off the current at every alternate upstroke of the piston when contact between the two electrodes is made; but no spark is required, the object of which is to prevent waste and economize the battery power.

Four claims are made, of which the second and third are in controversy. Claim No. 2 is as follows:

"An electric ignitor for gas engines, consisting of a flexible tongue forming one electrode or terminal, and an oscillating finger forming the other terminal, and adapted by its movements to act with a wiping movement against the flexible terminal, first in one direction, or downward, and in the contrary direction."

Claim No. 3 is as follows:

"The combination of the yielding tongue, S, shaft, T*, carrying a finger or projection, and mechanism giving said shaft rocking movement, by which the finger is drawn against and off the end of the yielding tongue first in one direction, and then in the contrary direction."

Ac

The specification, claims, and testimony introduced in the case show that the improvement claimed consists in a mechanism which produces what is termed a wiping or reciprocating motion; that is, one electrode, which is fixed to the shaft, wipes or rubs against the flexible and yielding electrode, thereby producing an electric spark, which ignites the gas in the explosion chamber of a gas en gine, causes an explosion, and furnishes the motive power. cording to one of the witnesses, "the wiping spark is when one electrode comes in contact with the other, and then is broken with a wiping or rubbing motion." The advantage of the wiping motion over other movements is that the electrode is always clean, and the current passes better, and creates a bigger spark. There are two wiping or rubbing movements, one rotating, and the other reciprocating; that is, moving back and forth. Another advantage of the reciprocating movement over the rotating one is that it has a tendency to keep the spring to which the flexible and yielding electrode is attached straight, thereby prolonging the period of its serviceability, whereas the tendency of the rotating movement is

that the flexible and yielding electrode is habitually bent in one direction, thereby softening it; and it becomes more and more bent until the contact electrodes fail to touch, from which it must result that no spark can be produced. In short, the value of the improvement consists in the device which produces the wiping movement, instead of the rotating movement, with the results above set forth.

The defendant, in his answer, sets up anticipation and want of invention. He relies upon the following prior patents to support the first defense, viz.: (1) Reissued United States letters patent No. 9,846, dated August 23, 1881, issued to J. P. Tirrell and George T. Pinkham, entitled "Apparatus for Lighting and Extinguishing Gas by Electricity"; (2) United States letters patent No. 272,004, issued to H. J. Warren, dated February 6, 1883, entitled "Electric Gas-Lighting Burners"; (3) United States letters patent No. 333,336, dated December 29, 1885, issued to Daniel S. Regan; (4) United States letters patent No. 368,445, dated August 16, 1887, issued to Cyrus W. Baldwin; (5) United States letters patent No. 387,167, dated July 31, 1888, issued to Julig & Ewald; (6) British letters patent No. 4,736, of 1884; (7) British letters patent No. 11,448, of 1888; (8) German patent No. 43,446. These patents all throw light upon the state of the art with respect to the ignition of gas by means of electric sparking, and the application of this principle to the igni tion of gas in gas engines. The patent issued to J. P. Tirrell and George T. Pinkham, No. 9,846, on August 23, 1881, and denominated "Apparatus for Lighting and Extinguishing Gas by Electricity," shows that the idea of igniting gas by electric sparking produced by a wiping or reciprocating motion between two electrodes was well known and understood, and, as applied to the lighting of gas used in houses, streets, etc., worked successfully. The patent issued to Henry J. Warren, No. 272,004, on February 6, 1883, for an improvement in electric gas-lighting burners, further exemplifies and illustrates this idea of electrical sparking produced by a reciprocating or wiping movement, as above stated. There was nothing new, therefore, in the application of the principle of electric sparking to the ignition of gas used as a motive power in gas engines. it is a well-established doctrine of the law of patents that it is not the result attained by a patentable device or mechanism which is patentable, but that the subject of a patent is the device or mechanical means by which the desired result is secured. Carver v. Hyde, 16 Pet. 513, 519; Le Roy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156; Corning v. Burden, 15 How. 252; Burr v. Duryee, 1 Wall. 531; Fuller v. Yentzer, 94 U. S. 288; Knapp v. Morss, 150 U. S. 221, 14 Sup. Ct. 81.

But

As stated above, the improvement claimed for the complainant's patent consists in the wiping movement, back and forth; also called the "reciprocating motion." The superiority of this improvement in an electric sparking igniting mechanism for gas engines over other devices which have rotating movements is supported by the evidence, and, for the purposes of the case, may be taken as established. But the fact remains that the wiping or reciprocating movement devised to ignite gas issuing from a gas jet is substantially the same as that which complainants claim for the ignition of gas