21 F.(2d) 643 action across between the plate and grid the objectionable disturbances pass from the plate circuit into the grid circuit. Because of the effect of this inherent capacity coupling residing within the audion itself, Hazeltine set out to neutralize the plate circuit. In chart 4, which is a reproduction Ha of Fig. 6 of the patent and the defendant's Claim 3 adds to claim 2 that the capacity coupling to be neutralized is that coupling which is due to the capacity between the plate and grid electrodes. Claim 3 states that the neutralizing coil may be any coil connected in the plate circuit provided that the coil is "closely coupled electromagnetically to the first coil and having a ratio of turns thereto equal to the ratio of coupling capacity to the neutralizing capacity." In the defendant's apparatus the neutralizing coil is a secondary coil of the plate circuit transformer, and it is closely coupled to the primary transformer coil. Claim 3 continues: "A ratio of turns thereto equal to the ratio of coupling capacity to the neutralizing capacity." In the defendant's receiver the ratio of turns of the neutralizing coil to the number of turns of the primary of the transformer is equal to the ratio of the coupling capacity to the neutralizing capacity. Claim 5 sets forth "an electric circuit arrangement for neutralizing capacity coupling between the grid and plate electrodes comprising a coil connected between the plate and filament system." The coil in the plaintiff's apparatus is L1 of chart 4, and is one of the two interleaved coils that Hazeltine found when he dissembled the middle ratio frequency transformer of the defendant's set. Claim 5 proceeds: "An auxiliary coil and a neutralizing capacity connected in series between the grid and filament system." L2 in Fig. 6 of the patent and in chart 4 is the auxiliary coil, and is one of the two interleaved coils in the defendant's receiver. C2 is the neutralizing capacity of the plaintiff's device, and is the small condenser with the mica insulation in the defendant's device. Claim 5 continues: "Said coils and said neutralizing capacity being so proportioned that variations in the plate potential cause equal currents to flow through the coupling capacity and through the neutralizing capacity, and prevent such currents from flowing between the grid and the filament system." The proportioning is done in adjustment of neutralizing capacity. The defendant used simplest proportions, 1 to 1. Claims 9, 12, 13, and 17 define a multistage amplifier. According to Professor Hazeltine's definition, a multistage amplifier is consecutive vacuum tubes or audions between which are connected the coupling transformer. If there was one vacuum tube ahead of the detector, it would have a one-stage amplifier. If there were two such vacuum tubes ahead of the detector, then it is a two-stage amplifier and any number of stages from two up would be a multistage amplifier. Claim 9 states: "In a multistage amplifier, including in each stage an audion and an output transformer having a coil electromagnetically coupled to the primary of said transformer." In the defendant's device the output transformer associated with the vacu um tube is the binocular transformer, and the primary is one of the interleaved coils and the coil electromagnetically coupled to the primary is the other one of the interleaved coils. Claim 12 calls for "in a multistage amplifier, including an output transformer having a primary and an audion in each stage." In chart 5. L1 is the primary and is associat ed with one of the vacuum tubes or audions. Claim 12 continues: "Means for neutraliz ing the capacity coupling between the grid circuit and the plate circuit of each audion, comprising a capacity connected between the grid of the audion in each stage and a coil coupled to the primary of said output transformer of that stage." The capacity is C2, which connects the grid of the vacuum tube directly to L2, which coil is coupled to the primary of the output transformer, the pri mary being represented by L1. Claim 13 is as follows:. "In a multistage audion amplifier, includ ing an audion in each stage, means for neutralizing the capacity coupling between the grid and the plate circuit of each audion comprising a capacity connected between the grid of each audion and a point in the plate circuit of said audion of opposite alternating current polarity to that of the plate." 21 F.(2d) 643 According to chart 5, C2, the capacity, coil in the other one of the interleaved coils connects at its left-hand side directly with connected to a small mica condenser, which the grid and connects at its right-hand side is the neutralizing capacity, and the two are with the terminal of L2, which is essentially connected in series between the grid, which a part of the plate circuit. L2 is connected is the other electrode and filament system. with L1, which is the primary of the trans- Claim 1 continues: "Said auxiliary coil beformer, and which is directly between the ing coupled electromagnetically to the first plate and the filament system. In order to coil with a coefficient of coupling substansecure the polarity, as stated in the claim, tially equal to unity and having a ratio of the lower terminal of L2 is of opposite po- turns thereto equal to the ratio of coupling larity to the upper terminal of L1; that is, capacity to the neutralizing capacity." The the upper terminal of L1, which goes to the ratio of turns is 1 to 1 in this case, and to be plate, is opposite to the lower terminal of L2, effective the ratio of capacities will be 1 to 1 which goes to the neutralizing capacity. when adjusted. In the defendant's receiver the close coupling is coupled with a degree of coupling substantially equal to unity. Claim 17 calls for a multistage arrangement, with means for neutralizing the capacity coupling between the grid and plate circuits of an audion. Claim 17 continues: "Means for preventing at all frequencies substantial coupling between any two stages thereof except for the conductive coupling on which the amplifying action of the audion depends." In Hazeltine's arrangement this element is found by inclosing each audion circuit in a conductive screen, and in the defendant's device it is an arrangement of binocular coils which prevents electromagnetic coupling from one stage to another. [4] The defendant's contention, that patent 1,489,228 cannot be interpreted to include a degree of coupling which was excluded from it during the proceedings in the Patent Office, is true, and, if the defendant were to use the degree of coupling in the Rice patent, it would not infringe. But the defendant's neutralization is effected in the plate circuit, as in Hazeltine, rather than in the grid circuit, as suggested in the Rice patent. The defendant does not use the split coil 4 of Rice, but uses instead the structure of interleaved turns, for the purpose of effecting a closer coupling than the split coil ad mits. The defendant's apparatus contains the elements of claim 1 of 1,489,228. Claim 1 reads: "An electric circuit arrangement for neutralizing capacity coupling between the grid and plate circuits of an audion, due to the capacity between the grid and the plate electrodes comprising a coil connected between one of these electrodes and the filament system." In the defendant's receiver the coil is one of the interleaved coils connected between the plate and filament system." Claim 1 continues: "And an auxiliary coil and a neutralizing capacity connected in series between the other of these electrodes and the filament system." In the defendant's device that auxiliary The defendant winds the two coils interleaved, which is the closest possible coupling which can be obtained with coils of the defendant's type, and is effective as unity coupling would be, and is substantially equal to unity. The defendant contends that "substantially equal to unity" means as close to unity as it is physically possible to get. To give the language of the claim such an interpretation would be ignoring the word "substantially" of the claim, and at the same time would destroy the whole significance of the claim. After many conferences with the Patent Office, Hazeltine changed the wording of the claim from "said auxiliary coil being closely coupled electromagnetically to the first coil," because the examiners said: "Since Rice surely discloses some amount of coupling, applicant appears to be entitled to claim only such degree of coupling as clearly falls without the scope of that patent, said degree to be defined in unmistakable and definite terms; 'closely' being not only indefinite but also insufficient." The word "closely" was canceled from claim 1 before the words "coupled electromagnetically to the first coil," and after these words the expression, "with a co-efficient of coupling substantially equal to unity," was inserted, and the amended claim read: "Said auxiliary coil being coupled electromagnetically to the first coil with a coefficient of coupling substantially equal to unity." In view of the Patent Office's correspondence, claim 1 must be read to exclude the prior invention of Rice, and must be read so as to give the claim an interpretation which measures the real contribution of the inventor to the art. [5] Professor Hazeltine in 1918 made a contract to enter the employ of the United States as consulting engineer in connection with radio matters. He was assigned to the development of radio receivers known as "Type S. E. 1420." While in the employ of the government, Hazeltine devised during November and December of 1918 a circuit for "neutralizing capacity coupling," which work was done at the radio test shop in the Navy Department at Washington. In 1919 Lt. Commander Loftin, who had been assigned to the Bureau of Engineering of the Navy at Washington, learned what Hazeltine had done. As a result of correspondence Loftin filed on August 7, 1919, an application for a patent in Hazeltine's name for a circuit for neutralizing capacity coupling. The application for said patent, which resulted in patent 1,450,080, stated: "This application is made under the Act of March 3, 1883, chapter 143, Stat. (U. S. Statute XXII, p. 625), and the invention herein described and claimed may be used by the government of the United States or any of its officers or employees in the prosecution of work for the United States or by any person in the United States without the payment of any royalty thereon." In June, 1920, in a letter to Lt. Loftin, Hazeltine stated that all papers bearing on the application be returned to him, as he was arranging with his own attorney to prosecute the application, because "prospective commercial developments make it very desirable that these cases be promptly acted upon." Mr. Hazeltine's personal attorney conducted the prosecution of the application, and the reference to the act of 1883 (Comp. St. § 9441) was stricken out of the application. The defendant's contention that the requests for the benefit of the act of 1883 constituted a dedication to the public is untenable. The defendant acquired no rights under said act because the patent was not issued under it. The reference to the act of 1883 was stricken out before the patent was granted. Hazeltine Corporation et al. v. Electric Service Engineering Corporation, supra. In neither patent in suit was application made for the benefit of the act of 1883. [6] The claims of the Hazeltine patents are not coextensive. The subject-matter of patent 1,450,080 is an unsymmetrical arrangement of closely coupled neutralized circuit generally with maintenance of the proper ratio of turns to capacities. The subject-matter of the second patent, Hazeltine patent, No. 1,489,228, is the special application of auxiliary neutralizing circuit to audions characterized by couplings substantially equal to unity. The subject of the Hazeltine patent, No. 1,533,858, is an audion plate circuit neutralization. Since the claims of the different patents are not coextensive, the law does not require that all be claimed in the same patent, but may at the option of the patentee be secured by different patents. Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Elmira & H. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 71 F. 396. The case was reopened on the plaintiff's motion on the 12th day of November, 1926, and there was introduced in evidence the British patent, 254,472, to the Western Electric Company, granted July 8, 1926. "The invention relates to electric wave translations systems, and more particularly to space discharge tube systems, wherein the production of undesired oscillations is prevented." This patent confirms the testimony of Hazeltine with reference to the Rice arrangement. The case was again reopened on the defendant's motion and on December 2, 1926, there was introduced in evidence the Carl 0. Weber patent, No. 1,605,411, granted November 2, 1926. This patent relates to the use of the audion as an amplifier, with deliberate elimination of regenerative, oscillations. This patent was put forward by the defendant to support its contention of noninfringement. Weber in his patent claims a tap-off, but the defendant uses an auxiliary coil and not a tap-off. The Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in Radio Corporation of America et al. v. Twentieth Century Radio Corporation (decided on May 2, 1927) 19 F.(2d) 290, held that the Hartley and Rice patents were valid. I find that the close coupling of the Hazeltine patent, 1,489,228, was a decided advance in the art, an advance that produced complete and permanent neutralization, an advance that could only be secured by adding the disclosures of Armstrong trolley wire patent to the disclosure of Rice. In the Hartley patent the Circuit Court of Appeals held it was an invention for Hartley to create a path around the tube through which may be fed an electromotive force in a direction to oppose the regenerative electromotive force through the tube. There is no suggestion in the Hartley patent that in any way discloses a plate circuit neutralization suggested in Hazeltine's patent 1,533,858. The patents are valid and the claims have been infringed by the defendant. Decree may be entered in favor of the plaintiffs with the usual order of reference. Settle decree on notice. 21 F.(2d) 653 ALEXANDER ECCLES & CO. v. STRACHAN SHIPPING CO. District Court, S. D. Georgia, E. D. January 9, 1924. 1. Principal and agent 146(2)-Party signing as "agent" must disclose his principal, or he will be personally bound. If one party to a contract describes himself as "agent," he is personally bound unless the contract makes it clear, or the other party knows, who is his principal, and that it is intended to bind the principal and not himself. 2. Shipping 104-Shipping company, signing as "agents" contract of carriage without disclosing principal, held bound as carrier. Shipping company, signing as "agents" contract for carriage of cargo of cotton to England, no principal being disclosed, held bound as carrier. 3. Shipping 132(2)-Libel for short delivery states cause of action without alleging respondent's negligence, or that it was common carrier, or that loss was within contract exceptions. A libel alleging that respondent contracted to carry a cargo of cotton to England, that a certain number of bales were delivered to its ship, and that a less number were delivered at destination, states a cause of action without alleging that respondent was a common carrier, or that it was negligent, or that failure to deliver the cotton did not come within the lawful exceptions of the contract. 4. Shipping 132 (3)-Carrier must show that failure to deliver goods according to contract was occasioned by something for which it was not responsible. On proof by shipper of failure to deliver goods according to contract, burden is on respondent to show that such failure was occasioned by something for which it was not responsible. In Admiralty. Suit by Alexander Eccles & Co. against the Strachan Shipping Company. On exceptions to libel. Overruled. See, also, 21 F. (2d) 656. Hartridge, Wright & Brennan, of Savannah, Ga., for libelant. Adams & Adams, of Savannah, Ga., for libelee. BARRETT, District Judge. Alexander Eccles & Co. brought their libel against Strachan Shipping Company, alleging that libelee contracted to transport 2,000 bales of cotton from Brunswick, Ga., to Manchester, England, that such cotton was delivered to libelee at Brunswick, and that 28 of such bales, valued at $6,062.18, were not delivered at Manchester. Copies of the original freight engagements and of the ocean bills of lading are annexed to the libel. The material portions of such are, respectively, as follows: Freight Engagements. "Brunswick Foreign Freight Contract. "Strachan Line. "Eng. No. 694. "Brunswick, Ga., May 27th, 1919. "Messrs. Alexander Eccles & Co., Savannah, Ga.-We beg to confirm freight engagement made with you today for two thousand (2,000) bales cotton, high density compres sion, minimum of 32 lbs. per cubic foot per steamship Shipping Board steamer (or substitute). Expected to arrive first half July from Brunswick to Manchester, England at the rate of one dollar & twenty-five cents ($1.25) per 100 lbs. prepaid." "6th. This contract is made subject to conditions of act of Congress governing bills of lading approved February 13th, 1893, and to terms and conditions of bills of lading in use by ocean carrier. "Proved damages to be the penalty for nonperformance of this contract by either party to this agreement. "This contract is for freight room required only by shipper named herein, and no portion of it can be re-let or transferred without the written consent of Strachan Shipping Company. "[Signed] Strachan Shipping Co., By A. M. Ross. Indorsements on Back of Contract. "In consideration of the Strachan Line accepting the shipments covered by this contract without the production of license or other documentary evidence to show that their importation into Great Britain is not prohibited, shippers hereby agree to accept all responsibility," etc. "This contract is made subject to conditions of act of Congress governing bills of lading, approved February 13, 1893, and to terms of bills of lading in use by steamers' agents and is further conditioned upon the continuance of the steamship company's service and the sailing of its steamers and (for war conditions or hostilities making it unsafe, etc.) the steamship company may, at its option, cancel this contract and shall be relieved thereafter from any liability hereunder except to return to the shippers” the cargo, etc. Ocean Bill of Lading. In upper left-hand corner, in large type: "Strachan Line. Strachan Shipping Co. Agents. Brunswick, Georgia.” |