et al. v.
BOSTON CAR SPRING CO.
(Oircuit Oourt, D. MaB8achu8etf8.
March 1, 1889.)
P4TENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT-COATING METAl,S WITH RUBBER.
The invention described in letters patent of May 6, 1879, to Isaac Adams, Jr., for an improvement in coating metallic articles with rubber, consists in int.erposing between the metallic article and the rubber a thin film of any metal, preferably copper. which at the temperature of vulcanization has a considerable tendency to unite with the sulphur in the rubber. In view ot the fact that the patent proceeds on the theory that the film must be very thin. and that copper is the best· metal, because a firm cohesion may be obtained from a very thin film of it, and in view of the opinion on granting all injunction, (21l<'ed. Rep. 67,)'recognizing such to be the theory of the invention, held, that defendants are not in contempt by using an alloy of copper and zinc, which need not be thin.
In Equity. On motion for an attachment for contempt. T. W. Olarke. for complainants. John L. _ Roberta, for defendants. S.
COLT, J. This is a motion for an attachment for contempt. Thecomplainants contend that are violating an injunction order of this court. The question turns upon .whether the defendants. are using the Adams process for covering metallic articles with rubber, described in his patent of May 6, 1879, which plltent has been sustained by this court, and the defendant adjudged to have infringed. 21 Fed. Rep. 67. In .order to determine the scope of the Adams patent, it is. well to refer to the opinion of Mr. Justice GRAY in this case. He begins. by referring to the specification. which states that great difficulty has been experienced in making rubber adhere securely to metals, and that by the patented improvement a firm adhesion may be obtained. Theinvention consists in interposing between the metallic article and therubber a film of any metal which, at the temperature of vulcanization, has a considerable tendency to unite with the sulphur always contained in the rubber compounds. Of the metals possessing such tendency, the films of which may be interposed, the most suitable are copperand silver, and of them copper is the easiest, as as the cheapest, to. apply. Lead and zinc may likewise be used; there is greater difficulty in obtaining a suitable deposit of these metals for the interposing film. The opinion proceeds:
"The specification throughout insists upon the necessity of making the in-terposed film very thin. It states that the film must not be of the same metal the article on which it is deposited; that it may be produced either by dipping or by electro-plating; that in covering iron, steel, or tin articles with copper, the method of dipping is preferable, and the article must be immersed in a weak solution of SUlphate of copper just long enongh to produce a bright. copper-colored depOSIt; and that, when the. method of electro-plating is. adopted,' great care should be taken that too thick a film be not deposited, and a film such as is known as ·coloring' or · striking' is sufficient. ... ... If< According to the evidence, the peculiar value of this invention consists in thevery thin film of copper or other suitable metal which, in the process of vul,
BObJ> fl. BOSTON CAB SPBIS<lPO.
canizing, is acted on by the sulphur contained rubber. so as to unite or combine with the sulphur, and be absorbed into the rubber, and to hold togetht'r the rubber and the metal which has been coated with the film. and make the rubber stick so fast to that metal that it cannot be forced off without tearing the rubber itself. If the film of copper is too thick, the wbole of it is not absorbed into the rubber. and so much of it, modified by the action of the sulphur. as is not absorbed, has so little coherence that therubber may be relldily detached * * * Each of Sterne's three patents speaks only of brass, a compound of copper and zinc, as the metal to be deposited; and the complainants contend that even a very thin film of brass would. by reason of securing a less perfect adherence. differ from the invention of Adams, in which the film is of a single metal. But it is nnnecessary to consider that point. because it is quit,e clear that neither of the Sterne patents contemplates or points out the necessity of making the film very thin, or gives any directions by which a person of competent skill would be led to make the film so thin as to produce the result· described in and obtained by the patent of Adams."
The meaning of this decision seems to me to be clear. The Adams patent, as interpreted by the court, is not confined to copper alone, though that metal may be preferable, but the gist of the invention lies in out the necessity of having the film very thin, and giving directions by which a person of competent skill would be led to make the film so thin as to produce the results described; and herein lies the main distinction between the Adams and the prior patents of Sterne. As shown by the record in the case and the opinion of the court, the theory which lies at the basil' of the Adams invention is this: that in order to produce adhesion between the ruhber and the metal the film of interposed metal must be very thin, and that copper produces the best film, from a very thin film of that metal. because you obtain a firm use the Now, it is clear to my mind that if the defendants continue thin film of copper, or of any metal, in the manner described, and to produce the results obtained by the Adams patent, they are, under the decision and decree of this court, guilty of contempt. But the difficulty of the complainants' position is this: the defendants do not deny that the Adams pJ'ocess may have merit,. but they contend that rubber will adhere to an alloy of copper and zinc, and to iron plated therewith, no matter how thick the plating may be; and that it will not adhere to copper, nor to iron plated with copper, unless an exceedingly fine film is deposited. They further say that since the decision in this case they have not used a solution of copper, but of brass, or an alloy of copper and zinc. If this position of the defendants be true, it undermines, to some extent at least, the great merit of the Adams patent. And I must say that upon the whole eviqence before me, and an examination of the exllibits produced, the defendants have made out with a fair degree of certainty that the thin film called for by the Adams patent is not necessary when an alloy of copper and zinc is used; in other words, that cohesion nnder these conditions does not depend upon the thickness of the plating. I am also of opinion that the defendants have shown by the weight of evidence, strengthened by circumstances and probabilities, that they do not
c,opper sQhition or'theptocesscontempIatedby 'the AdaD1s inthey do employ alloy of copper which is deposited by ,the ordinary C;llectro-metallurgical process, and a view, because not necessary, of obtllining the very thin film called for \ by the Adams patent. ' Upon the facts as they appear to me in this case, it is manifestly my duty to denY'the present motion. Motion denied.
(CirCfj,it Oourt.. D. Ma88achUlettl. February 28, 1889.)
, The object of the inventiondes,cribed in letters patent No. 264.054, Issued September 12. 1882; to George ,R. Allen. is to provide means for a loaded or unbalanced spindle to move atit\l:lower end to find its true center of rotation. and thus avoid the effects of gyration; and claim 1 is for the spindle. support. ing tube, bolster tube, and step 'fitted loosely into the bolster tube, and , adapted to receive within it the end of the ,spindle."coml;Jined with the pin, also to hold ,step loosely. The pin the step from rotating witl1 the spindle, but allows it to movein the bolster tube, liS the foot of the spindle travels to find its true center of rotation; Held infringed by il. device which has in place of the piJ;l a spring, one, end bearing against a sho\llder on the step, and the other against a ",boulder inside the sUI>Porting tube, and the upper section of the supporting tube of which operates the same as ,the bolster tube,though made of, two metals,-iron' and brass. In the patent of 1880, t:be step is not restrained from rotatiO'l1. The object of the invention described in the ,Buttrick and Flanders patent of 1879 was to produce certain improvements in the surroundings of the spindle. so that it might be covered, protected" and kept, in 'PQsition while the step was removed. aJ;ld ,replaced, and might also be arrested at any time. There was DO statement that the device was intended to increase the speed of the spindle. or to de,crease itsgyratio'ns, and the step was, ·not described as'havin,g a latl!ral ,movement. ,:Neither invention was designed for use with a sleevewhirl IDovement, as in the Allen patent.. The Oraper patent of January 31, 1882, does not show the pin and step; Held no anticipation. ' ,
In Equity. Bill by the Sawyer Spindle Company againstChar1es G. Buttrick and others for the infringement of a patent. 'Oha'UnceyBmiih and Livermore & F'ish, fOl"complainant. Jam,es E. Maynadier and James H. Young, for defendants. C01./I', J .. The bill of complaint alleges that the defendants have infringed letterapatent No. 2,64,054, issued Septembeil 12, 1882, to George H. Allen for 'an improvement in spindle bearihgs. The obJect of the invention is to provide nieans whereby a loaded or unbalanced spindle may move fit its lower end 'to .find its true ceuter Of rotation, and 'thus avoi,d the effects due froin gyration. The invention consists of a spindle and supporting tube, combined with a bolster tube located therein, a. step placed loosely in the bolster tube, and a pin, fitting the stflP loosely,