516 



THE INDIA RUBBER WORLD 



[June 1, 1917. 



The operation of the trap is as follows: With the parts in 

 the position shown, which will be the case when the trap con- 

 tains the maximum volume of water to be discharged, the action 

 of the float will shift the valve A to the position shown; the 

 port B communicating to the air or steam pipe is open and the 

 air rushes in and destroys the vacuum in the trap and holds the 

 inlet valve C to its seat, while the outlet valve D opens by gravity 

 and permits the accumulated water to escape. When the float 

 begins to lower, due to the falling water level, the toe E of the 

 rocker will move to the right and, by contact with the yoke of the 

 hammer, will shift it in the same direction. When the hammer 

 passes the dead center it falls to the right and strikes the disk F 

 with suflkient force to move the sliaft and valve stem to the 



right, thus closing the 

 port B and opening 

 the port G. This op- 

 eration once more es- 

 tablishes and maintains a 

 vacuum until the water of 

 condensation reaches such a 

 level as to cause the toe to 

 move to the left and again 

 shift the hammer, causing 

 it to fall to its first position. 

 Contact with the disk / 

 shifts the valve stem and 

 valve, closing the port G 

 and opening the port B. 

 when the vacuum is again destroyed and the trap again emptied 

 of water. 



No live steam is required to operate the trap, unless the dis- 

 charge is to be elevated above the trap. There are no stufling- 

 boxes nor trunnions and but one valve. 



As a final word it is necessary to call attention to the im- 

 portance of proper pipe connections in the installation of steam 

 traps. No matter how well made or desigtied they may be, 

 successful operation depends on the two general principles, 

 equalization of pressure and gravity flow being carefully consid- 

 ered in making steam trap installations. 



\\ ixtfr's \'.ACi;uM Tr.vp. 



JUDICIAL DECISIONS. 



/^ u.\R.vxTEE Tire & Rubber Co. v. Vehicle Apron & Hood 

 ^^ Co. This was an appeal from the Superior Court of 

 Marion County, which judged for the plaintiff. 



Defendant objected to the instructions of the court to the 

 jury concerning the question of the authority of plaintiff's agent 

 to make an agreement for the return of goods, claiming that 

 these instructions did not tell the jury that plaintiflf should have 

 accepted or repudiated the contract as a whole. 



It was found that the case had been given a fair trial on 

 proper instructions and judgment of the trial court was affirmed. 

 [Northeastern Reporter. Vol. 115, page 89.] 



MARKS RECLAIMING PATENT EECISION. 



In our issue of April 1 we stated that the Circuit Court of Ap- 

 peals for the si.xth circuit, by affirming the decision of the Dis- 

 trict Court, had created a situation which left the question of 

 the validity and infringement of the Marks Reclaiming Patent 

 still undetermined. An examination of the decision shows that 

 that is not the case, as the Circuit Court of Appeals in Ohio 

 based its decision solely on the question of infringement. The 

 following is quoted from the opinion : "In the view we take of 

 the claim allowed and the question of infringement, it is not 

 necessary to pass on the validity of the patent." 



.\s to infringement, the Ohio Court had before it a different 

 question from that before the New York Court. In Ohio, the 



defendant was first destroying the fabric in the rubber with acid 

 and then treating the rubber for about seven hours with caustic 

 soda. The Court held that this process did not infringe the 

 Marks claim for a treatment of "twenty hours more or less" with 

 caustic soda. The Ohio decision in no way affects the earlier 

 decision of the Court sitting in New York. 



UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DECISION. 



The United States Court of Customs .Appeals, May 14, ren- 

 dered the following decision relating to syringes and other 

 articles in chief value of hard rubber, in the case of Knauth, 

 Nachod & Kuhne v. United Stales. These goods were assessed 

 at 25 per cent as manufactures of hard rubber. The importers 

 protested that they were properly dutiable at 15 per cent as 

 druggists' sundries, but the Board of General Appraisers over- 

 ruled the protest and their decision was affirmed by the Court. 



'•HORSESHOE," ADMITTED TO REGISTRY. 



In The Ixdi.\ Rubber World, April 1, 1917, a brief refer- 

 ence was made to the trade-mark "Horseshoe." In order to 

 prevent any misunderstanding, the complete decision follows : 



Ex parte, Racine .\uto Tire Co. Application for registration 

 of trade-mark for tires, outer casings and inner tubes, filed 

 March 31, 1915. No. 85.589. Appeal. 



The applicant appeals from the ruling of the examiner of 

 trade-marks in refusing registry cf the word "Horseshoe" 

 as a mark for inner tubes for tires, and tires and tire casings 

 of rubber or rubber and fabric, on the ground that the term is 

 merely descriptive- of the goods. 



If it be supposed that the word is merely descriptive of the 

 outer tires because the tread of tlft tires may have projections 

 in the form of minute horseshoe figures (of which I find no 

 evidence in the file), I think nevertheless this is not merely 

 descriptive, since no mechanical function or peculiarity of con- 

 struction in a mechanical sense arises out of the raised studs 

 being U-shape ratlier than T-shape or O-shape. .\ny projec- 

 tion having parts running in variant direction would be func- 

 tionally the same; the particular shape is a mere matter of 

 suggestive appearance. \\'ould a -t-11-44 mark be descriptive 

 because repeated over and over around the tread? 



The case is distinguishable from that i>i re United States Tire 

 Co. 225 O. G., 1107. because a chain tire is a tire having a chain- 

 like series of projections, that is. projections with elements both 

 longitudinal and lateral, by which the mechanical function of 

 preventing slipping in either direction is attained. Tlie chain 

 tire was in wide use and patented as such, and the word de- 

 scribed a useful unclaimed construction which anybody had the 

 right to describe by that term. But if one thereafter should 

 put a chain of figures of a duck on the tire and call it the "Duck" 

 tire, this would not describe the tire, but the particular design 

 of the projections thereon, used in that form, not for mechan- 

 ical purposes, but for ornament and identification. 



.\ more serious question raised is whether the applicant is 

 barred by the fact that the expired Ives patent. No. 541.091 of 

 June 18, 1895. shows incidentally a series of projections ui .the 

 form of horseshoes on the tire in one of the figures. I do not, 

 however, feel justified in assuming, because Ives published a 

 picture which showed conventionally some projections of dia- 

 monds, horseshoes, etc.. that therefore if one made a tire ac- 

 cordingly it would of course be described as a diamond tire 

 or a horseshoe tire. 



Certainly, a? to inner tubes, on which of course the applicant 

 would never put horseshoe projections, the trade-mark cannot 

 be refused registry. The horseshoe has a prominent significance 

 as the sign of good luck: it is fanciful, and a good identifying 

 mark. It appears of record that no other tires known by this 

 name have ever been made or known, though the applicant in- 

 quired of Ives and the owner of his patent. The mark will 

 therefore be passed for registry, and the examiner's rejection is 

 overruled. F. W. H. Cl.\y, 



-■\ssistant Commissioner 

 October 30, 1916. United States Patent Office. 



Orders for submarine batteries have been placed by the gov- 

 ernment of the United States with several rubber mills. This 

 is said to be seriously affecting the supply for battery dealers. 

 These batteries are very large, and battery equipments for sub- 

 marines are said to cost $50,000 apiece. 



