l .
40 FEDERAL REPORTER.
THE FIRPPEXTINGUISHER CASE.
GRAHAM, Adm’r, etc., and another v. J onssrou and another.
(Circuit Court, D. Maryland. July 26, 1884.)
PA·rr:i~:rs ron livvnnrroivs-GRAHAM Finn-Ex·rnveu1sHnn—SrncrAr. Ac·r or Con-
cnass or Juan 14, 1878, Grmuriuo PATENT T0 HEIRS—CONSTITU"DIONALITY
-rLrFno*r OF-·PATl¤lN'l‘ Susrsmnn.
The act of congress approved June 14, 1878, relieving the heirs of William
, A. Graham from all disabilities preventing them from renewing or reviving an
application Bled by Graham in 1837 for a patent for a novel method of extin-
guishing fires, held to be a constitutional exercise ofthe power of congress; and
held, that the patent No. 205,942, granted July 9, 1878, to Graham’s adminis-
trator, was properly issued in pursuance of the authority given by that act of
‘ congress. Held, that the intention of congress was to allow the original appli-
cation of Graham to be revived, and that this intention is suflicieutly expressed
in theact, and that the novelty of the invention for which the patent was
granted is to be tested as of the date of original application tiled in 1837. Held
that, at the date of his application, Graham was the first discoverer that carbonic
acid gas and water, when condensed in a sufficiently strong vessel, would pro-
pel itself by its own elasticity in a suthcient stream to a sufllcient distance to
be a useful agent for extinguishing fires, and that he described ooth a portable
and a fixed apparatus by which his method could be applied with beneficial
results. Held, that the claim in the patent granted to his administrator for
this method or process of extinguishing fires is valid. Held, that the defenses
set up against the patent-that it was granted for several distinct inventions ,
that the specifications are deceptive and misleading, and that it covers a dif-
ferent claim from that set forth in the application-—are not valid objections.
In Equity.
Rufus W. Applegarth and L. L. Bond, for complainant.
I. F. Williams, Abraham Sharp, and R. K. Evens, for respondents.
Momns, J. This is a suit in equity for alleged infringement of
patent No. 205,942, granted July 9, 1878, to Archibald Graham, ad-
. ministrator of William A. Graham, deceased, for a new method and
an improved apparatus for extinguishingfires.
The claims are as follows:
"I do not claim to have discovered a new element in nature, nor do Iclaim
to have discovered the abstract principle that carbonic acid gas will not keep
up combustion. What I claim as new, and desire to secure by letters patent,
is (1) the method or process of extinguishing fires by means of a properly
directed stream of mingled carbonic acid gas and water projected by the press-
ure or expansive force of the mingled mass from which the stream is de-
rived; (2) the combination of a strong vessel for containing the mixture of
carbonic acid gas and water under pressure, with a stop-cock, flexible hose-
tube, and a nozzle, substantially as and for the purpose specified; (3) the
combination of fixed pipes or tubes, arranged by or through a building, with
a stationary or fixed fountain or tank, for forcing mingled carbonic acid gas
and water, by its own elasticity, through such pipes, substantially as speci-
tied; (4) an improved method of extinguishing fires, consisting——First, in
condensing carbonic acid gas by artificial pressure or in generation; second,
controlling it by a suitable vessel; and, finally, in directing its flow to the de-
sired place, substantially as speciiied."
The original application of William A. Graham, of Lexington, Vir-
ginia, was filed in the patent-office, November 23, 1837, over 40 years