feature is not found does not contain the Cole invention, and is therefore not within the Cole patent.

The defendant's elevator is constructed under the Larsson patents, Nos. 786,653 and 786,654. The following cut from the latter patent shows the valve mechanism and connections:

The upper part of this figure shows the main valve, the motor, and the pilot valve arranged in a somewhat different way from the Cole apparatus, the motor being in line with the main valve, and the pilot valve set at right angles thereto. The main purpose of the arsson pilot valve is to prevent the sudden reversal of the elevator. To accomplish this, the mechanism is so organized that, when the operating lever is moved from its central position in either direction to start the elevator, the operator cannot move the lever back beyond its central position until the main valve has returned to its central position, which takes place when the lever is moved back to center to stop the elevator.

As is seen from the drawing, the pilot valve consists of a two-way piston valve, with a throttling plug on each end of the piston rod. The pilot valve has graduated supply and exhaust ports, consisting of six circular openings and three diagonal openings on each side; the latter openings being throttled with screw plugs. The main valve also has graduated ports.

Connected with the pilot valve is a supplementary mechanism, comprising an auxiliary pilot valve stem, rack, elongated pinion, screw, nut, and rotating and stationary cams. The auxiliary pilot valve stem is connected at its lower end with the pilot valve stem, so that both stems move together. The rack is attached to the main valve stem. The elongated pinion, the screw, and the two rotating cams are attached to the auxiliary pilot valve stem, while the two stationary cams are attached to the frame.

The auxiliary pilot valve stem, rack, pinion, screw, and nut are the means provided for automatically returning the pilot valve to center on the movement of the main valve. The rotating and stationary cams, which are normally separated a certain distance, perform a double function. They limit the outward throw in either direction of the operating lever from its central position to start the elevator. They also prevent the throw of the operating lever back beyond its central position after it has been thrown in either direction to start the elevator until it has been returned to its central position and the elevator stops.

When the operating lever is in its central position, as shown in the drawing, the pilot valve and the main valve are in their central positions, and the cams are in their central position. When the lever is moved in either direction to start the elevator, the pilot valve stem is moved up or down, thereby opening the supply or exhaust, which causes the main valve to move to the right or to the left. This movement of the main valve sets in operation the rack and pinion and screw, thereby bringing the pilot valve stem back to center, but leaving the lever in its outward position. On the return throw of the lever to center to stop the elevator, the pilot valve stem opens the supply or exhaust, which causes the main valve to return to center; and this movement of the main valve sets in operation the rack, pinion, and screw, thereby bringing the pilot valve stem back to center with the lever in its central position ready to start the elevator again in another up or down movement.

When the lever is in its central position its throw in either direction is limited by the distance between the cams. When the lever is thrown outward in either direction to start the elevator, and the pinion begins to rotate on the movement of the main valve, the rotating cams will occupy such a position with respect to the stationary cams as to prevent the throw of the lever back beyond its central position, and therefore prevent the operator from suddenly reversing the movement of the elevator. And this is true whether the pilot valve is partly or wholly opened, for in no instance, by reason of the position of the cams, can the operator after starting the elevator move the lever beyond its central position until the main valve moves back to center and the elevator stops.

This operation is described in Larsson patent No. 786,654 as fol

lows:

"As shown in the drawings the parts are in normal position and the operator can move the pilot valve either up or down from the central position any distance up to its extreme of travel, which is the pitch of said screw, 37, or the distance said screw, 37, will move when making one revolution in nut, 36. Suppose the operator should move the lever, 16, half-way down to the position shown at 46. This will move the pilot valve half-way down and will cause the main valve to move half-way to the left. This movement of the main valve will turn the pinion, 40, a half-turn, which will restore the pilot valve to normal position, the lever, 16, remaining at position 46. This will bring the cams 44 and 45 to the vertical position, shown in the drawings; but as they have turned half-way around the distance that the cam 44 can now be moved into cam 42, or the distance the cam 45 can be moved into the cam 43 will only be one-half of a pitch. The operator can now at any time move the lever, 16, still lower to increase the speed of the car; but from position 46 the operator

can only move the lever, 16, upward to the central position, and cannot pass the central position until the high point of the cam 45 is turned back to clear the high point of the cam 43, which only takes place when the main valve reaches its closed position in its travel to the right. Thus the operator cannot move the operating lever, 16, up past the central position until the main valve reaches its closed or central position. If the operating-lever, 16, should be moved half-way up or to position 47, substantially the same action would take place, except that the cams 44 and 45 would be revolved a half-turn in the opposite direction when the main valve reaches its half-way position to the right to allow the cylinder, B, to exhaust, whereby the operating-lever, 16, an only be moved back to the central position until the high point of the cain 44 is turned back past the high point of the cam 42. The same action takes place no matter what degree the operating-lever is moved up or down, as the partial revolution of the cams, 44 and 45, is proportional to the movement of the operating-lever, 16-that is to say, if the lever, 16, is moved down to any extent up to a full movement thereof it is locked from being moved back past Its central position by cams 45 and 43 until the main valve comes back to its central position, or if said lever. 16, is moved upward to any extent up to a fall movement thereof it is locked from being moved back past its central posion by cams 44 and 42 until the main valve comes back to its central position. This prevents a careless operator from reversing the motion of the car vioently or instantaneously, as the main valve must come back easily to its central position by reason of the graduated openings in the pilot valve, it being impossible to throw the pilot valve across the center to alter the gradual centerng of the main valve. Each centering movement of the main valve takes place at exactly the same rate of speed as the main valve comes to rest as it moves way from its central position to cause the car to go up and down."

The main ground upon which the complainant bases infringement is that in the defendant's elevator as actually constructed the return throw of the pilot valve stem is less than the outward throw, with the result that, while the outward throw opens all the supply or exhaust ports, the return throw only opens a portion of the supply or exhaust ports, and hence the main valve moves quickly in its outward movements and slowly in its return movements, thereby causing the elevator to start quickly and stop slowly.

Whether the return throw of the pilot valve stem is the same as the utward throw depends upon the construction of the screw and cams. If the pitch of the screw and cams is the same, as contended by the defendant, the return throw will be the same as the outward throw, because upon the outward throw the movement of the main valve will cause a complete revolution of the pinion, thereby bringing the cams back to the same position, so that the return throw will necessarily be the same. If, on the other hand, the pitch of the Screw is different from the pitch of the cams, the return throw may be Less than the outward throw, because on the outward throw the movement of the main valve will not cause the pinion to make a complete revolution, so that the cams will not be returned to the same ition, but to a new position in which their contact will prevent the full return throw.

In support of its contention that in defendant's pilot valve the return throw of the pilot valve stem is less than the outward throw, the complainant called two witnesses, Ernest W. Marshall, an engineer of the Otis Elevator Company, and William F. Cole, the inventor of the patent in suit. Mr. Marshall examined one of the defendant's elevators which was being installed in the Wabash Terminal at Pittsburg. As a result of this examination and of sketches

taken at the time, Marshall made a drawing which is in evidence. From this drawing and from other knowledge of a somewhat general character, Mr. Cole constructed a model of defendant's structure which is also in evidence. In this model the return throw of the pilot valve stem is less than the outward throw. Mr. Cole afterwards examined the Wabash Terminal elevator, and made an amended drawing of a section of defendant's pilot valve, which is also in evidence. It is admitted that Marshall's first drawing was not free from mistakes. It is also true that it does not appear from the testimony of Mr. Marshall or Mr. Cole that either of them made any measurements of the pitch of the screw and cams or of the throw of the pilot valve stem in the Wabash Terminal elevator. It further appears that the testimony of complainant's expert McElroy, in complainant's prima facie case, is based upon the correctness of these drawings and of the Cole model.

On the other hand, the defendant has met this issue by the following evidence: The Larsson patents, which describe the pitch of the screw and the cams as the same; copies of the working drawings. or blueprints from these drawings, of defendant's elevators, including those installed at Pittsburg, which show that the pitch of the screw and cams is the same; the testimony of Mr. Larsson, the patentee. who is the chief engineer of the defendant, and of Mr. Waterman. the superintendent, who both swear that the defendant's elevators were constructed from these drawings; and, further, that the defendant never built an elevator in which the pitch of the screw was not the same as the pitch of the cams. Upon this state of proof the complainant clearly has failed to establish that the defendant has ever built an elevator in which the return throw of the pilot valve stem was less than its outward throw.

If, however, the evidence had been otherwise, and it had been shown that in defendant's pilot valve the pitch of the screw and the cams was such as to make the return throw of the pilot valve stem less than the outward throw, the complainant, in my opinion, would still have failed to make out a case of infringement, because the result is not accomplished by the same or equivalent means. The means are not the same, since this form of defendant's pilot valve does not contain the essential feature of the Cole invention, namely, the throttling of a portion of the pilot valve passages by the movement of the main valve. Nor are the means equivalent, since it cannot be said, upon any proper construction of the Cole patent, that to effect a restriction of the pilot valve passages in stopping the elevator by limiting the return throw of the pilot valve stem is the equivalent of the independent throttling mechansim of the Cole patent, which automatically closes a portion of the pilot valve passages by the movement of the main valve.

In complainant's rebuttal evidence Mr. McElroy advanced other theories of infringement. All these theories rest upon the untenable assumption that the Cole patent covers all means for permitting a quick start of the elevator, and at the same time insuring an automatic slow stop. Suppose, for example, as contended by Mr. McElroy, the defendant's structure is so organized that the main valve has an idle

travel or an unnecessary post area, with the result that the elevator starts quickly and stops slowly, it is obvious that any such solution of this problem is outside of the Cole conception, or of the means in which he embodied his conception as set forth in his patent. And the same reasoning applies to Mr. McElroy's other theories.

From a full and careful consideration of defendant's structure, I have reached the conclusion that there is no difference between the opening and closing movements of the main valve; and, therefore, if the elevator starts quickly, it must necessarily stop quickly, and, if it starts slowly, it must necessarily stop slowly, during both its ascent and descent. This conclusion is based upon the fundamental fact that the supply side and the exhaust side of the pilot valve are the same in construction and mode of operation. A decree may be entered dismissing the bill.

GOOD FORM MFG. CO. v. WHITE.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York. May 8, 1907.)

1. PATENTS CONSTRUCtion of CLAIMS—ACQUIESCENCE IN LIMITATIONS. If a patentee acquiesces in the limitations suggested by the Patent Office, and the essential elements of the claim are alluded to by reference letters indicating that the Patent Office intended to restrict the claims to the particular device described, a claim to a broader scope cannot be maintained.

[Ed. Note. For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 38, Patents, § 244.] 2. SAME-INFRINGEMENT-NECKTIES.

The Davies patent, No. 605,947, for a necktie having "the connections, C, C, secured to the inner face of the band portion adjacent to each end portion, and provided at their free ends with rings adapted to fit over a collar button," conceding it to disclose patentable invention, in view of the prior art and the action of the Patent Office in suggesting the language of the claim designating the connection pieces by reference letters, which suggestion was accepted by the patentee, must be limited to a tie having connections so secured. As so limited, held not infringed.

In Equity.

Otto Munk (Baxter Morton, of counsel), for complainant.
J. E. Hindon Hyde, for defendant.

HAZEL, District Judge. This suit is for infringement of letters patent issued to Charles W. Tudor Davies, No. 605,947, dated June 21, 1898, for improvements in neckties. The invention "consists in the novel construction and arrangement of the parts whereby the strain which is placed upon a neckband to hold the same firmly to a collar is removed from the knot."

The single claim of the patent reads as follows:

"As an article of manufacture, a necktie consisting of a neckband and two end portions, these end portions being adapted to form a knot, and the conRections, C, C, secured to the inner face of the band portion adjacent to each end portion, and provided at their free ends with rings adapted to fit over a collar button, substantially as set forth."

The object of the patentee was to provide means for securing the bow or tie to the front of the collar to prevent its slipping or dis