Nikola Tesla U.S. Patent 1,061,142 - Fluid Propulsion Patent Wrapper Page 62

862 It is not within his power to say that the case for the turbine covers the pump because the same device which is claimed as a turbine might be used for a pump. For not only is that contrary to fact, except in a very general sense, but it is contrary to the law as laid down in the very recent case, decided by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, of Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Independent Moving Pictures Co., 200 F.R., 411. In this case the invention was a feed mechanism for Motion Picture Apparatus, and admittedly capable of use in either a projecting machine or a camera. The patent, however, was entitled, Improvements in Projecting Machines, and some of the claims brought in the elements that are used in such machines but not in cameras. The court even went to the extent of conceding that the apparatus covered by some of the other claims could be used in either machine, nevertheless it was held that the applicant having designedly shown and described a projecting machine, and not having indicated any intent to include cameras, was estopped to claim the latter as within the scope of his invention. ( In the present case the claims are so limited that on their face they do not cover a turbine. The title given to the invention, and the disclaimer of the turbine would, moreover, be conclusive against any contention that a patent granted on the claims covered a turbine, and yet, conceding as the Examiner must, that the pump as described by the claims was an invention, was original with the applicant, and is not claimed by him in any patent or other application, protection for this invention is denied, because another copending application shows a device -3