
    IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF RUFUS S. MERRILL FOR RE-ISSUE OF PATENT No. 28,762, GRANTED JANUARY 19, 1860, FOR IMPROVEMENT IN LAMPS.
    I. Where a claim was for a flange around and in a plane with the top of a lamp-wick tube, and a prior patent described a like flange “ at or near”' the top of the tube, but showed it in drawing and model a trifle below the top. Held, that the patent anticipated the claim, although the purposes or effects of the flanges respectively declared by thclaimant and patentee were different.
    II. If two inventions are substantially the same in fact, whatever may be claimed by either party in effect, in contemplation of patent-law they are one.
    III. It is not purpose or results that are the subject of patent, but the instrumentality, contrivance, or machinery through the agency of which results are effected.
    STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
    This was an application of Rufus S. Merrill for re-issue of patent No. 28,762, granted January 19,1860, for improvement in lamps. The Commissioner rejected the application on the ground that the alleged improvement had been anticipated by a patent granted to Hale & Chandler March 1, 1859;. The invention is described in the opinion of the court.
    
      A. Pollock and M. Bailey for appellant.
    
      Marcus S. Hopkins for the Commissioner of Patents:
    The only difference between the two devices, if there be a difference, is in the position of the flanges on the wick-tube as shown by the respective drawings and models. Merrill shows his flange at the top of the wick-tube, and Hale & Chandler near the top — about one-sixteenth of an inch below it — in their model. But they direct in their patent that it is to be put at or near the top.” Whether or not the effect would be materially different with the flange one-sixteenth.
    
      of an inch from the top instead of at the top is, perhaps, questionable, and I have, at present, no means of determining. But, admitting that it would be different, tlie question for the court is whether the words “ at or near, ” in the patent of Hale & Chandler, did not mean at the top as well as near the top of the wick-tube. No argument can aid the court in deciding this. Patents are to be construed liberally. Parker vs. Stiles, 1 Fish., P. R. If the devices be held to be practically the same in construction and position, and it be thought that Merrill was seeking a different object or effect, which Hale Si Chandler did not contemplate, then I submit this is immaterial; that Hale & Chandler are entitled to all the benefits of the operation of their flange in the position they specified, whether they understood and contemplated them when they made their invention or not. The discoverer of the fact that, when applied “at” the top of the tube, as their patent specified, instead of near the top, the flange produced-a better effect, was not an inventor of a new device, but the mere dicoverer of a function of an existing device. Morton vs. New York Eye Infirmary, 2 Fish., 320.
    The case resolves itself into this question: When one man has a patent for employing a flange “at or near” the top of a lamp-wick tube, can another man properly be granted a patent for employing a like flange at the top of a like lamp-wick tube in the same manner, to be used in the same way, because he sets up a different reason for doing it, or a different theory of its effect ? If Hale & Chandler should come into the Office now with a re-issue application, and claim the flange “at or near” the top of the tube, such a claim, according to the established practice of the Office, would be granted them, (Commissioner’s Decisions for 1870, p. 170,) because that is the invention actually set forth by them in their patent. O’Reilly vs. Morse, 15 Howard; Battin vs. Taggart, 17 Howard; Hussey vs. McCormick, 1 Fish., 509.
   Cartter, Ch. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents rejecting an application for the re-issue of patent No. 28,762, granted to Iiufus S. Merrill, January 19, 1860, for an improvement in lamps.

The invention is a flanged lamp-wick tube.

The flange is placed on the tube, or made a part of it, and extends around its mouth in the plane of its top. The object of employing it in this position, as stated in the application, is to deflect the ascending current of air which supports combustion, and cause it “to impinge at an angle upon the flame, to produce more perfect combustion.” The appellant claims, “in flat-wick lamp-burners, of otherwise ordinary or suitable construction, a laterally-projecting deflecting-flange, adapted to the top or mouth of the wick-tube, and constructed substantially as described, to operate in the manner and for the purpose set forth.” This claim whs rejected by the Commissioner upon the patent of Hale & Chandler, No. 23,085, granted March 1, 1859, which shows a like flange placed upon a flat lamp-wick tube, as the patent describes, “at or near the top of the wick-tube,” for the purpose “of equalizing the aerial current as it passes upward toward the flame,” and making “the flame more even and uniform.” The model and drawing of this patent show the flange a trifle below the top of the tube. Nothing is said in either of the patents, or in. the re-issue application under consideration, with reference to the width of the flange employed, although it is obvious that its effect in deflecting the ascending current of air depends about as much upon its width as upon its position.

The object sought by both patentees in the use of the flange was to obtain a better light; but their explanations how and why the flange improved the flame were different. Hale & Chandler said it equalized the ascending air-current and made the flame more uniform; while Merrill has another hypothesis — in fact, two others. In his original patent he said:

“This my improvement relates to coal-oil burners, constructed in such a manner as to impel the vapors generated in the oil-reservoir, and issuing therefrom, to mingle with a current of air, and to impinge upon the flame, and thus supply it v ith the quantity of oxygen requisite to consume entirely the hydrogen and carbon of the oil and vapor decomposed by heat, and thereby avoid the production of smoke and increase the brilliancy of the light, without, however, augmenting the consumption of oil.”

In his re-issue application he says the “ main point” is:

“ That the ascending current shall be deflected away from the base of the flame and caused to impinge upon the flame at a point higher up. The flange constitutes a shield or barrier which surrounds the base of the flame, and the air must pass outwardly around this obstacle before it can reach the flame, and is consequently compelled to strike the flame at a point above its base.”

The latter explanation is probably the true one, and it no-doubt sets out the most important function of the flange. But there is nothing in either of the patents before us to show that this was originally contemplated or understood by either of the patentees. The solution of the issue herein is to be found in the naked statement of the case. The improvement of Merrill, sought to be re-issued, was anticipated by the patent granted to Hale & Chandler March 1, 1859. The specification of Hale & Chandler, enlightened, by their model, makes their earlier invention identical with the subsequent invention of Merrill. It is true that each declares a different purpose in the result of their respective inventions. And perhaps if the claim of different and distinguished results was to control the subject, the applicant might be entitled to a re-issue.

It is not purpose or results that are the subject of patent, but the instrumentality, contrivance, or machinery through the agency of which results are effected.

It is an axiom in mechanics and mathematics, and a self-evident truth of universal application, that the same causes produce the same results. Itj therefore, the two inventions are substantially the same in fact, whatever may be claimed by either party in effect, in contemplation of patent-law they are one as a necessary and legal consequence.

The subsequent invention of Merrill must yield to the-prior patent of Hale & Chandler.

It is the judgment of the court that the decision of the Commissioner is right, and it is therefore affirmed.  