AURORA WATCH 00.
(Oircuit Court, N. D. lninoiB. July 81, 181lO.)
INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS-ExTENT OF CLAIM.
10,631 for a "stem-winding watch
The first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth claims of reissued letters patent No. " are for a device the dietinctive characteristic of which is that the winding and hand.setting engagements are not effected by the direct force of the push' and pull upon the stem·arbor, but are brought about by movement of the stem-arbor, which brings into action certain light sprmgs arranged to swing the yoke which carries the winding and setting train that has no positive connection with the stem-arbor. Helil, that these claims wer" infringed, by a device accomplishing the same result by means of an oscillating yoke carrying a winding and hands-setting train, adapted to be placed in winding and settin'g engagement by the endwise movement of the stem-arbor acting lin springs ill such a manller that the engagement is not forced by the direct push or pull upon the stem-arbor.
Patent No. 287,001 for a "watch pendant" covers a device in the stem to lock the arbor in, either the Winding or sett,ing position. Held. that the' manufacturer of watch movements only did not infringe this patent, though his movements were adapted to be used in any case fitted with the device covered,by the patent. S. SAME-NovJl:L'ry. The claim in reissued letters patent No. 10,631 for a "stem-winding watch," for a device whereby the shifts from the winding and hands-setting engagements to each other are not effected by the direct force of the push and pull upon the stem-arbor, but are brought about by longitudinal movements of the stem-arbor, which bring into action light springs arranged to swing the yoke which carries the winding and setting trains, is novelt though there are several prior patents which effect these shifts by meanS of the airect force of the push and pull upon the stem·arbor. . The claims of a patent must be so construed, if possible, as to uphold the patent, and though they may be brOad enough to 'include results as well as devices, yet, where the specHlcdevices are set out in the drawings and specifications, the claims should be construed as for the devices there shown. .
4. SAME-CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIMS.
. InEquity. Prindle &: RU88el and L. Hill, for complainants. Bond, Ada'11l8 &:Jones, for defendant.
BLODGETT, J. The bill in this case charges the defendant with the infringementof reissued letters patent No. 10,63], granted to complainants, as assignees of Duane H. Church, on the 4th day of August, 1885, for a "stem-winding watch,"-the original patent having been granted to Church, assignor, to the American Watch Company, July 3, 1883, and patent No. 287.001, granted October 23, 1883, to Caleb K. Colby fora "watch pendant." The improvement covered by the Ch'.lrch patent is applicable to the class of watches where the watch is wound and the hands set by means of the stem, and consists of an oscillating yoke, carrying upon.its under side, pivoted at or near its longitudinal center, a pinion, which is so set as to engage with smaller pinions carried at each endofthe yoke. This central wheel, or pinion, having beveled cogs,on the under side thereof, which engage with the beveled pinion, which is set in the line of the stem, and into which the inner end of the bor enters a short distance, by a square or octagonal opening, so that this beveled pinion can be rotated by the stem-arbor. BI rotating the stemarbor,motion is imparted to the central pinion of the yoke, whereby
such motion is communicated to the two pinions at the ends of the yoke. Passing through the: small' beveled pinion' with wIlich the stem-arbor engages is a loose sliding block or bar, which meets the inner end of the stem-arbor, for the: purpose OfB; t,hrust 'or push motion of the stemof the stem-arbor.. By arbor, and acts as an extension sliding bar acts upon asprhlg,which and setting train into. with the whiqh.. is done bY$winging the YQkl;l so as to bring the pinion oo:one end of it into contact with the winding wheel, when, by rotatipgJhe the watch pe wound up, -:there being a latch inthe<sheath, or case, of the stem,'ivhich is arranged to hold the stemof its inwal'l1 whereby the ,,;inding wlleels Ilir6 kept ,in winding engagement,--while, when it is' desired to· set the hands, the stem is drawn outwardly, which allows a spring arranged for ,that purpose to swing the yoke out of winding and into setting engagemeht.. :Jtr'will be seen that a latqh or catch intbestem, which shall holdibe:'stem,arbor safely at the. points of its extreme inward and out· waf4 necessary to ,the working of this steDl-winding and stem device, and thepatePt sbpws alatch.'Qf,retaining device in the.st:erri·toloek the arbor in eitherthewinding ol'!letting' position, of and for claims were allowedhim;,'in'his origin,al patenti ontha appli<Jation for a reissue, an interference was declared between himself and Colhy as to these claims, on the hearing of whichOolbywas decided to be the'prior inventor of the in the. stelll' and Chprch'll claims for ,that part of his device were dlsalfowe.d, and the patent for that feature awarded to Colby. The Church patent, therefore, while it contains a description of the latch or retaining device in the stem-sheath has no claims covering. it, but the stem-winding and of his paten,t a.re adapted to be used only with some device lor locking the stem-arbor in its inward and outward positions, and, perhaps, this comment will bold true as to all practical and stem-setting watches. Infringement is charged in tbiscase of thefilist, third, fourth, fifth,'and sixth claims of the reissued patent, whicbare: .. (1) 'As an irrlprovement in'stem winding and setting watches, a winding and hands-seltillg trainwpich is adllpted to be placed in'engageriJentwith the Winding whel'll,orthe dial-wheels by the longitudinal rnovementof a stem-arJ;Jor that has nO connection with said train, Ilubstflutially as and for in ,stem winding the purpo$e specified.'" . "', '" (3) As an and setting a windiIlg lind hands-setting train which is adapted. to be placed the wheel or the dial-wheels, by the 10ngitudinal'fuov:ement of li'stem-arbor, and is nornlallyin engagement with saiddial.whee:ls,substantiaDy as and·foi' the purpose'set forth. (4) As an winding :and setting watches, a: M>inding andhands-setting :w,hicp. Is in,engageml'nt with the in combination :w,ith a stem-1/-I'LJor that has, no, positive with said train, Mapted the cause said windlng',antl'Jtnnds-settmg trlLln to wlth the wlnalng' Wheel,and to be simultaneously disengaged 'from said dial-whet'ls, substantially as and for the p.u:rpostrsllown and ; (5) Afnm lUI provement'iJi stem winding and
ROBBINS V. AUnORA WATCH CO.
movabie steril-ltl'bllr that has no positive connection with the watch movement,lllld, when moved longitudinally to the inner limit of its motion will' cause saidwindiIfg'and setting train to be disengaged from said dial-wheels, and engaged with ti'he winding wheel, and when moved longitudinally to the 0liter limit of its motiQIl will permit said train to de disengaged from said windipg wheel, andengag-ed with said substantially as and for the pu'rpose specifit>d. (6) As an improvement in stem winding and setting. watches the combination of a winding and hands-setting tm,in which il:l nbrmally in engagement with the dial-wheels, a stt>m-arlJorhaving no positive connection with said tra l n. and an intermediate devicewbich is adapted to coml/lunicate the .longitudillal inward movement of said stem-arbor to said winding train, andeause the same toengagll with the :willding wbeel, substantially as and (Qr the purpose shown and describf,ld." The d.efenses insisted upon are (1) that the patent is void for want of novelty; (2) that the claims sued upon are too general,and do not de-' scribe with sufficient certainty the device by which the results are effected; (3) that defC;jndant does not infringe. The distinctive characteristic of the Church device is that the winding aI:lq hands-,setting engag ments are not effected by the direct force of the push and ,pullupo'n the stem-arbor; which because the force of the hand of the operator directly applied is liable to injure the deli,cate Qog-wheelmechanisms which are thus forced into contact with each other. These wil1dingand engagemE'nts are brought about bylongitul'HnaJ n10vements of the stem-arbor,which bring into actioncettaiJ,l light springs arranged the yoke which carries the windipg and settingtfllins. For instance, the watch, as ordinarily carried in the pocket, is always in the winding, engagement, and this iseftecte<l by p1;lllhingtbe'stem-arbor inwardly, to the limit of its movement' in,that direction, w'hen it is caught and held by the latch in the sheath of'the stem. This inwlll'umovement of ,the, stem-arbor carries in-' ward the lQose sliding bar or block, N, 'SE:J iUs called in :the speci-; ficationj,whicb bysuch,inwardmovt>ment comes in contact with and ; swingsinwlirdly an arm, which by, such iIlward; movement causes i a spring to, bear upon the end of the yoke whh:h carries the winding thereby brings the :inoolltact with the wind-' iI,lg wheel orthe mninspring., This spring being Jight,if the cogs of, these meet end onjor do not mt'sh,they rest in contact tmtiHhe . winding,pin1ol1 has r'erolved, when come at once into engagement wi-tll: the of the winding wheel, where they are kept in windengagement, so long ,as the stem-arbor is held at its inward limit. is released fromjts inwardmovements'llIid drawn ou1wardly, the,arm npon whicb the bar, N, has been pressing, and spring ishrought into actidn,whichswingstbeyoke outof ' the windingengngement,':and .brings the .end carrying dial-wheels, and, the cogs of the respective! wheflls mesh" if theyha,ppen tomeet in. the proper relations,and,if not, ' they the rotation ofthe pinionsbringsltHe cogS .
'with the dial-wheels, in combination with a rotatable
train Whioh is normally in' en-
·ltlwil1'Nseen from this description, if r have made it clear, that the engagements of the pinions of this yoke with the winding and dial wheels are effected by the operation of springs, which are brought into operation by tho and outward movements of thestem-arbor. It is because th(:lse Itre in their natural position, and not, constrained when the parts are' in the hands-setting engagements, that the inventor says" that the hands-setting engagement is the normal condition of the mechanism." It is 'not, claimed that Ohurch was the first to make a stem-winding and stem hands-setting device for a watch. The English patent shown in this granted in 1844 to Adolph Nicole, shows a device for winding setting its hands by thestem-al'bor, the winding and handstrain consisting of a V-shaped metal plate, with a pinion pivoted near its center, having cogs, or teeth, on its outer periphery, and beveled cogs 01} the under side of its rim. The beveled cogs engage with the beyeled pinion attached to the inner end of the stem-arbor, which has an endwise movement. This V-shaped metal plate carries upon its point a small pinion, which gears with the large central pinion,. so that, by rotatillg the stem-arbor, motion is transmitted to this small pinion on the, end oLthe plate. This V-shaped metal plate is pivoted to the rim which holds the movement at its right-hand corner in such a position that the small pinion on its point rests between the winding wheel and dhd-wpeals of the watch, and by pressing on the stem-arDor this small pinion.is swung into contact with the winding wheel; while, when the ste.m-ar1)or: is drawn outwardly, it brings the pinion 'nto engagement with the dial-wheels. Here, then, is shown a device for winding and setting :the hands of the watch by a longitudinal movement of the stemarbor, anq. the V-shaped plate shown operates' substantially in the same manner as the oscillating yoke in the Church patent. But the stemarbor was positively connected with the winding and setting train, and these two engagements for winding and setting were brought about by the direct pull and push of the operator upon the stem-arbor, which was liable to injure the delicate. structure of the small wheels, if they happened to come in contact in such a way as not to directly engage or mesh into ea,chother. In the Lehman American patent of July, 1866, a stemwiQding and'stem hands-setting deviceis shown, in which a rotating and IQugi:tudinaUy .moving stem-arbor is made to work the winding and hands-setting, mechanism without the oscillating yoke or piate.· The winding and 'hands-setting engagements. being brought about by clutches arranged upon the stem·arbor within a movement, so that this stemarpor has ,a positive connection with the movement or works of the watch, and with the.hands-setting and winding train. The engagements of the winding and hands-setting train are also effected by the pull and push oUhe stemvarbor, which makes the mechanism liable to beinjured in bringing about these engagements, as I have already described. These two patents to me to be fair representative types of the different and stem-winding watches, which are shown in the classes of the proofs in the case. The Carnahan patent of October, 1881, art, shows an oscillating yoke carrying the wheels at each end,which are
BOBBIl'iS fl. AURORA WATcH 00.
respectively brought into engagement with the winding and setting wheels by longitudinal movements of the stem-arbor. The patent granted to Charles V. Woerd, February 9, 1883, also shows an oscillating yoke carrying a winding-pinion at one end, and the hands-setting pinion at the other end, hy means of which the winding and hands-setting engagements are obtained through the instrumentality of a longitudinally moving stem-arbOT; but in both the latter devices, as in the Nicole patent,/ the force of the pull or push to effect these engagements is expended upon the wheels, and is therefore liable to injure the wheels in the manner which has heen described. So that Church seems to have been the first in the art to obtain the winding and setting engagements by means of springs, which were brought into action by the inward and outward movements of the stem-arbor, thereby avoiding the liability to injure the· wheels. It is true there is but little difference, mechanically speaking, between the operation of the Carnahan and Woerd devicell, and the device of Church. Both Carnahan and Woerd show the winding engagement as the normal condition of their watch, and the hands-setting engagement to be the exceptional or constrained condition. But, as I have already said, their mechanism and arrangement of operative parts is such that the pull and push upon the stem-arbor is transmitted directly to the wheels which are to be brought into engagement, and therein they differ from the Church device. The advantages claimed for the Church device are (I) that the movement can be removed from the case of the watch without taking the nlovernent apart so as to remove tIie stemarbor; (2) that there is no liability to injure the wheels in effecting either the setting or Winding engagements. As to the first advantage insisted upon, it appears clearly from the proof that Church was ,by no means the first to show a device whereby the movement could be taken from the watch without removing the stem-arbor, or disturbing the same. It is shown in the Brez patent of July, 1875, in the Fitch patent of April, 1879, in the Eisen patent of December, 1880, and in the Woerd patent, which I have already cited, besides in several other patents which appear in evidence in the case, and which. it is unnecessary to refer to. But I find in none of the patents cited any mechanism which effects the winding and setting engagementsby means of springs which are brought into action in such a man.. ner as to relieve the wheels from the direct force of the pull and push upon the stem-arbor. As I have already said, Church did not invent the short stem-arbor which allowed of the removal of the movement from the case of the watch, nor did he invent the latch or lock. in the sheath of the stem-arbor, by means of which the stem-arbor is retained at the limit of its inward or outward movement, but he has adjusted and attached what he did invent to be used with such a stem-arbor, .and I therefore think he has the right to claim that his winding and handssetting train has no positive connection with ,the stem-arbor, as he has, by means of his sliding block, N, within the movement, secured all the results which would be accomplished by a longer stem-arbor. This
ing block or bar, while it haa nO positive connection !1tem-arbor, being so arranged in connection, ",itqthe stem-arpQi thatit is pushed inwardlM :py the inward movem lIl.t0f the and, foUo,w8 the stem-arporou,twardly, when the steOl ,is to)ts inwarci limit, by reaS<;>o of the action of the spriugsb llottging to the winding and hands-setting train,s. ' , '. ' ',', ' , ' :, ,.." .'. As to thecriticisIJl thatthed,aimsof the complainqnts'.patent too and include results rather devices, I will merely say, it is one of the settled canons for the of the claims of a patent that they must be so i(,po1;lsible,as to uphold the patent, and, ill the light of this rule, whell plaim is, in terms, for a winding !l<ud hands-setting train that to be placed in engagement with winding and dial wheels of the watch lo.ngitudinal movement of the stem-arbor that hilS no positive connection with the train, the claim cannot be held to mell,n aAY of a, hands-setting train, but such an one as is shown in the sp lcification8 and drawings of th,epatent. ,If the claim is held to lllean any w:inding and setting train adapted to, be, put into setting engagement hy a longitu. <linal move,o/Il;m.t" the stem-arbor, which has no positive connection ",ith the train"then, .it wouldrnanifestly be anticipated by the Woerd and ,Carna.han patents, and perhnps.qther blllentOl'S who show winding and setting to be winding and settirig engagemen.ts byend",is6 of stem-arbors that have no positive conJl. lction su,cr traills. And explanation applies to all. the clai ms; if,they !lreto be, read inth,e sense o.f which ,their lanp:uage is caof being thElll ,tP are obnoxious to the criticism that lJ/' they are claims for results and not deviQes. B.ut the words, "sub. §t!l!utially as, ,a.np, for, sbo.wn," til ke us, pack to the specificaand Riid bring there shown into the claims t Iconstrue;th,!i:c1aim as Jor there shown. ThereJore, these . broad, I ,think:they can be sustained as for tpe Putent,23 Wall. 218. . ' p',p,on the Afinfringe,n;lEjnt, I think it oply needs a com pariof thE! the watch to see that there is spbsumtial between, them. Defendant's watches, t,pre!l(jt' wnich oscillating Y9ke a windbe placed in windipg and setting of the by means. of prplongatio,ll e,f like complainants' bar, is push,ed inward, urings into a spring wNch thrpws the, i?f the yoke carrying the winding into C(\ljItILctwith thewiudiIlg)"heel, and which, whpn the. pre!1B" oCthe stem.. is throws the winuil)g pinion 0Plt of the, setting wheel into setting itbe 'qial:wheels, by, the.fl:ctipn ,C?f springs, and which (the that. is, .the engagepotiQrcljlfL.by the, direqt PUShQf ,pull upon the but J:?ythe rqore of the springs. . the,re is
slight ID1)chanism, it that onhe complainants' patent..'"While defendant contends that the normal condition of its watch is that of the windingengagenleot, yet, themoment 'the pressure upon the stem-arbor is withdrawn, the action of the ,spring as in the complainants' patthrows it into setting engagement the en t. In other words, a!3 I upderstand the operation of watch, it is normal in the' setting' ehgagement the same as coolplainants'i it is olj.ly ilj..Winding engageUlent while pOnstrailledthere by pressure from the to its innef limit., .','".. ", , As. I have already said, the Colby:patent, upon whicn this su,it is only to in the stem-arbor, sofaras brought, this suit is; cpncerned, which locking device is sheath of only the. stem-arbor. The proof shows affirmatively thatthe lnanufactures the mOyetnElOts or watches;. that it has never made any has made any steI11sor pendants with this locking device; and the complainants admit that' the only ground ing the <;leierl<lant ,liable, upon this Colbypa,tent is that it isa contributory i;l(ringer, arel\-dapted to be th,e Cqlby pendant, or device., I think it, is, an ab,i'nqaQt answertQ. ,this claim that,' the deJ,enqant's movement is adapted to. be used ",ith '!lny watch which the stem-arbor not directly connected with the stem-winding and hands-setting trains. Several such bors are'SP:ownin the proofs. , III the Himmer patent a device, is Iihown f()r in its variousposition$ by means 'or a"catch could,. llndoubtedly be applied to pe,ndants, or to the or latch, watch, if they saw fit. I therefore find that there is no infringeIl:Uint.of the Col1;>y patent. ' A <lecree may. therefore be prepared findipg the ,infrillges the 'first, third" fourth. fifth, a,nd Sixth claimspf theChprchpatent, and that it does not infringe the Colby patent, and the bill is dismissed as to the Colby patent.
CONSOLIDATED ROLLER-MILL CO.
(Cftrcuit Court, N. D. nlin0f.8. February 10, 1890.)
Patent No. 222,895, granted December 28, 1879, to WiIliam D. Gray, for "an improvemellt;in roller grinding-.machintls,·' and patent No. 238,677, granted March 8, are anticipated by the " 1881, too Sllid Gray, for a "rpl).er-mill for grinding and FrElDch'patents of 1875, and the Nemelka Lake English patent oJl1877; the adjustmentBof the rolls provided for by by tbe Gray patents being aceojIlpUshed by SUbstantially ,the Ilame adopted by the Nemelka 'though somewhat differently placed or modified. . 2. SAME-PATENTABILITy-INVENTION. , Reissued 'patent ,No. 10;139, granted to W.lL Odell; for '8 "roller·jIlUl," (original , Depember 13,1881,) is void ,for want of invention, the beingj;Jut the '06nbectioh of'the two shafts in '8 double roller Diill,' so as' t'o obtain 'a simultaneous operation of the two.
.FOR 'iNVENTION-AllTICIP"TION-l!:E<lBANICAL EQtlIVALENTS.