Nikola Tesla U.S. Patent 1,061,142 - Fluid Propulsion Patent Wrapper Page 36

836 let port or porte are at the center and the outlet port or ports at the periphery of the casing, which, in claime 6 and 7, is further defined as volute. Tesla having discovered the broad principle underlying these two applications is surely entitled to claims for both embodiments of that principle, namely, in a turbine, and in a pump, and it is not material. that the language which defines them may have much in common in its terms. We would even maintain, were it necessary, that the claime in the two cases might be in the seme terme throughout without prejudice to either application, if the devices their selves are different. "Two things are not necessarily similar in a practical sense because the same words are applicable to each. The question of infringement involves consideration of practical utility, and of substantial identity, and, therefore, must he quantitative as well as qualitative." Goodyear Mach. Co. vs. Speulding, 101 F.R. 990. Edison vs. Mutoscope Co., 151 F.R., 767. We hope, however, that unless something unforseen prevents, both applications may issue on the same date. Passing the objection to original claime 7, 6 end 9, now 5, 6 and 7, that they lack petentable novelty in view of the patent to Lundwall, and possibly that to Lennon and Banks, of record. To simplify the argument we may safely dismiss from consideration the patent last mentioned because its most essential and prominent feature is a rotary piston containing vanes, "the successive vanes around the circumference of the piston being, some at one angle, and others at a reverse engle", which construction places it at once in the category of blade or bucket devices which both as individuale and es a class are radically different in construction and function from the Tesla invention. We therefore confine the discussion to Lundwell.