« AnteriorContinuar »
combination of the saddle-bridge and spring-operated nose-pieces, for such a combination is not broadly claimed. The claim is distinctly limited to that combination of the elements in which there is a cooperative gripping action between the saddle-bridge and nose-pieces in a plane substantially perpendicular to that of the lenses. What kind of construction would afford this action is not set forth in the claim. We must therefore turn from the claim to the disclosure. Therein Finch said:
"My improvement embraces the combination of a saddle-bridge and a leverguard having but a small bearing surface, namely, the disk, 10. The said bridge, which extends well down on the nose on both sides, supports the glasses, while the guard maintains the bridge in place and prevents the glasses from turning or falling forward. The small area of the guard-disk is amply sufficient for this purpose. The lever-guards heretofore used have been provided with a long bearing-surface which grips the nose on opposite sides and in some instances causes such irritation that the eyeglasses cannot be worn."
Finch's idea, as we gather it from reading the claim in connection with the specification, was that the saddle-bridge should support the eyeglasses just as it supported the spectacles, and that, just as the arms of the spectacles extending back over the ears in a plane substantially perpendicular to that of the lenses held the saddle-bridge firmly in place, so should his spring-operated nose-pieces by pulling back in a plane substantially perpendicular to that of the lenses hold the saddlebridge firmly in place. This result was to be obtained and the objections to the long bearing-surfaces were to be obviated by the use of small bearing-surfaces that should grip the soft part of the nose between the eyes, and by their forward motion in the plane perpendicular to that of the lenses should draw the saddle-bridge back against the nose.
The action of appellants, who are extensive manufacturers of eyeglasses, in marketing saddle-bridge eyeglasses only in connection with spring-operated nose-pieces having long bearing-surfaces, might be considered as corroboration of appellees' expert's opinion that the combination of the Finch patent was for all practical purposes inoperative. But we will not pursue that inquiry, because appellees do not use the invention as we have defined it. Appellees' eyeglasses have the elongated nose-pieces which afford support independently of the bridge-a combination of saddle-bridge and nose-pieces beyond the letter and the spirit of Finch’s patent.
The decree is affirmed.
(176 Fed. 100.)
MORGAN ENGINEERING CO. V. ALLIANCE MACHI. 00.
A patentee is entitled to have his patent considered with reference to an advantage over the prior art necessarily secured by the operation of the device as described, even though such advantage is not specifically claimed.
(Ed. Note. For other cases, see Patents, Cent. Dig. 241; Dec. Dig. $
2. PATENTS (328*)—VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT_TRAVELING CRANE.
The Shem patent, No. 791,951, for improvements in double trolley travel. ing cranes, was not anticipated, and discloses patentable invention in view of the marked superiority in safety and economy, in more extended use and constant operation of the patented structure over those of the prior art, although claims 1 and 2 are void as too broad. The remaining claims also held infringed.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio.
Suit in equity by the Alliance Machine Company against the Morgan Engineering Company. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
This suit was brought by the Alliance Machine Company, assignee of one George W. Shem, to obtain relief against alleged infringement by the Morgan Engineering Company of patent No. 791,951, granted by the United States March 17, 1905, to Shem for certain improvements in cranes.
It is admitted by the answer that the letters patent were granted to Shem. but it is denied that he was the original inventor; and, after the usual denials, It is alleged that the improvements do not constitute patentable invention or discovery, and also that the material parts of the invention had prior to its date been described and patented in divers printed publications and patents, and a number are specified in paragraph 8 of the answer, and in an amendment made thereto, among which are letters patent No. 528,621, granted by the United States to A. J. Shaw, November 7, 1904, for improvements in hoisting machinery, and letters patent No. 78,579, granted in Germany to Beck and Henkel, in 1894; also in a certain design made by one Sawyer for the Shaw Electric Company. Thereupon replication was filed. Proofs were taken, the cause was heard, and on November 25, 1908, decree was entered finding for complainant, allowing recovery of gains and profits, ordering reference and accounting and granting writ of injunction. From this decree the Morgan company appealed.
The nature and object of the patent in suit are in part thus stated in the specifications: “My invention relates to that class of traveling cranes which carry both a main hoisting-trolley and an auxiliary hoisting-trolley. The obJect of my invention is to so construct such a crane as to permit ready accessibility to the supplementary trolley, to reduce the strain upon the girders which constitute the side members of the crane-bridge, to permit of the mounting at any desired point on the bridge, preferably at the longitudinal center of the same, of the motor which drives the bridge-traversing mechanism, to Increase the range of movement of both of the trolleys, and to permit of a more compact arrangement of the hoisting mechanism on the main trolley than is possible with the ordinary construction of crane."
The manner of obtaining the advantages mentioned is thereupon shown by descriptive words and drawings. The first drawing displays a side elevation of the crane made according to the invention, and the second one an end view or cross-section of the crane. Further description, with copies of drawings, will be found in the opinion. It is stated in the specifications that the invention "is shown as applied to a ladle-crane." It is then stated that the ordinary construction of ladle-cranes was open to many objections: That the weight of the supplementary trolley and its load caused excessive strain upon the girders supporting the crane-bridge; that so suspending and supporting the supplementary trolley required the hoisting-chains of the main trolley to be placed outside of the girders, also requiring a wide separation of the hoisting-drums, prevented locating the bridge-driving motor on any part of the bridge except at its extreme end, also required a shaft almost as long as the crane-bridge for transmitting power from the motor to one end of the bridge-trucks, and so limited the range of movements of trolleys on the crane. bridge.
The plan adopted for overcoming these objections in substance was to widen the space between the bridge girders, place between them two parallel girders, operate the supplementary trolley on these intermediate girders, and suspend the hoisting-chains depending from the main trolley inside instead of outside of the main girders. It is then stated that the plan proposed overcomes the objections to the usual construction thus:
The parts are compactly disposed, the strains are divided and distributed, a central location of the bridge-driving motor upon the bridge is permitted with its accompanying advantage of relatively short engths of transmitting-shaft between the motor and the bridge-supporting trucks, and in which, furthermore, the range of travel of either trolley is not restricted by the presence of said motor or other appurtenances of the crane, a full travel of the trolley from one end of the bridge to the other being permitted.”
The claims are as follows:
"1. A crane having a bridge with main hoisting-trolley mounted upon the inain girders of said bridge, and a supplementary trolley mounted upon sup plementary girders independent of said main girders, substantially as specitied.
“2. A crane having a bridge with main hoisting-trolley mounted upon the main girders of said bridge, and a supplementary trolley mounted upon supplementary girders independent of said main girders, said supplementary girders being located between the main girders, substantially as specified.
"3. A crane having a bridge with main and supplementary hoisting-trolleys, the main hoisting-trolley being mounted upon the main outer girders of the bridge, and the supplementary trolley being mounted upon supplementary interior girders, the hoisting-chains from the main trolley depending between the said main and supplementary girders, substantially as specified.
"4. A crane having a bridge with main and supplementary hoisting-trolleys, the main hoisting-trolley being mounted upon the main outer girders of the bridge, and the supplementary trolley being mounted upon supplementary interior girders, the hoisting-chains from the main trolley depending between the said main and supplementary girders, and the hoisting-chains from the supplementary trolley depending between the supplementary girders which carry said trolley, substantially as specified.
“5. A crane having a traveling bridge with outer main girders, supplementary inner girders, main hoisting-trolley mounted upon the main girders, and having its hoisting-chains depending between the main and supplementary girders, a supplementary hoisting-trolley mounted upon said supplementary girders, and a bridge-driving motor centrally mounted upon one of the outer girders, substantially as specified."
H. A. Seymour and F. P. Fish, for appellant.
Before LURTON, SEVERENS, and WARRINGTON, Circuit
WARRINGTON, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above). In the view we take of this case, it is necessary first to consider whether the patent involves the quality of invention. It is claimed that Shem's improvements over the prior art consisted in the relocation and rearrangement of the parts of the well-known double trolley traveling crane, without the result of any new function or mode of operation. and that this does not amount to patentable invention. The relevance and force of this contention may be tested by a comparison of the advantages of a crane made according to this invention, with the disadvantages of the type of crane in use at the date of the patent. The comparison will be more accurate and helpful if it is applied, as patentee in his specifications applied his invention, to ladle-cranes.
The description given of the prior state of the art in the specifications of the letters patent, as in substance pointed out in the statement, seems to us to be borne out by the evidence. The same is true of the advantages attained by the invention, as there stated.
This is a combination patent. It has relation to hoisting and transporting mechanism as applied to ladle-cranes. As stated by learned counsel for appellant, this type of traveling crane "is most properly used for the handling of molten steel delivered from the furnaces of the steel plant into a ladle, and for carrying this ladle to a place where the contents of the ladle are discharged into ingot molds." Necessarily the inventor had to do with an old subject and an existing art. The movement and uses made of any substance as necessary and dangerous as is molten metal must always have engaged the faculties of men in contriving new and improved safety devices for its control.
An illustration of the old form of ladle-crane is, we think, fairly represented by the following sketch:
Fig. 1 represents the bridge of the crane in side elevation, and Fig. 2 represents it in cross-section. A, A, are the main girders attached to the end carriages, B, B, having wheeled trucks that run on tracks, C, C. The main trolley, D, is carried on tracks of the main girders, A, A, and is provided with hoisting drums, E, E, from which the hoisting chains are suspended on the outside of the main trolley, D, and outside of the main girders, A, A. Each hoisting-chain as shown on Fig. 2 is fastened on the lower end to a cross-bar, from the ends of which are suspended hooks for engaging the trunnions of the ladles. The auxiliary trolley, G, is operated over runways attached to the inside lower edges of the two main girders, A, A. The auxiliary trolley is equipped with one hoisting-chain carrying a hook on its end, used for operating the ladles. This is what is known as the overhanging ladle-crane. The following are copies of the drawings of the patent in suit: