GATES IRON-WORKS !I. FRASER.

GATES IRON-WORK!! V. FRASER

et ale

(Oircuit Oourt, N. D. Ilt1mof.B.

April 5, 1890.)

L

P"-TBNTS I'OR INVENTIONS-ExTENT OJ!' CLAIM-CRE-CRUSIlERS.

Aolaim for a mill constructed of a conical shape, and having an eccentrio motio. In the manner set forth, is not a broad claim for any mill having such shape and motion, irrespective of its other features of construction and operation. Words of limitation in claims are not to be disregarded, and claims cannot be broadened by eliminating or disregarding such words.

ll.

SAME.

S.

8.u4E-PATBNTABILITY-PRIOR STATE OJ!' ART-CIlILLED BE"-RINGS.

Chilling bearings and wearing parts are old in the arts, and it does not require invention to chill any known bearing. Gates did not make any invention in chilling Brown's bearings.
,

SAME.,

Bearings similar in construction and operation cannot be differentiated from each other by chilling one of them. '

5.

8AME....,BABBITTED SEGMENTS.

Bll1:lbitting the wearing portions of bearings does not involve invention, and .. claim for a piece haVing a segmental babbitted portion is not infringed by a babbitting entirely around the bearing part. , The improvement of one of the elements in a combination of all old parts, which does not change the character or operation of such combination, does not make a new one. Such changes relate to the part imprOVed, and not to the larger combination. It does not amount to a new improvement or to invention to apply common 4&vices to a llyrating machine, such machine being old in the art. 'Break-pins being old and common in the arts, the Rusk and Raymond patents cannot be extended beyond the limits of their claims; and when not 80 extended the defendants do not infringe. .

6.

SAME-COMBINATION-IMPROVEMENT OJ!' PARTS.

7.

S.

BAME-GYRATINGBIlAl!'T MACIlINE.

SAME-ExTBNT OJ!' CLAIM-BREA.K-Purs.

9.

SA.ME-IsSUE OJ!' LBTTERS-AMENDMENT OJ!' CLAIMs.

Amendments made upon requirement of the pat6nt-oftlce, or in view of references, are not to be disregarded in construing claims.

In Equity. Final hearing. Sllit was brought for alleged infringement of eight patents, and proofs made as to seven, to-wit; Nos. 56,793, to H., Pierce; 201,646, to C. M. Brown; 243,343, 243,545, 246,608, 250,656, to l'. W. Gates, known in the record as Gates' patents Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively, all of which were for improvements in stone or ore-crushers; Nos. 110,397, to J. H. Rusk, and 237,320, to G. & A. Raymond, for improvements in break-pins for grinding-mills. Coburn Thacher, for complainant. West Bond, for defendants. ·
GRESHAM, J. The single claim of the Pierce patent reads: "The construction of a conically shape<1crushing-mill, with an eccentric motion .as herein described, for the purposes and in the manner substantially set forth." The claim is not broadly for the construction of a conically shaped crushing-mill with. an eccentric' motion. The very language Of the claim limits it to a mill constructed in the manner substantially 81!1 set forth, and the claim, thus construed, describes a mill, or machine, v.42l':.no.1-4

, FEDERAL BBPORTEB,j

vol. 420

radically different from the defendants' machine. The latter does not have the rocking ,wedge seotion .of the' Piercernachine, without which it would not operate, to say nothing of other differences. Claims 2, 3, and 4 of tl).e Browo'pa.tent are involved ,in this suit. The fourth claim is limited to a shell, inclosing at its upper end a concave :provide.d with trough, the frame, of wlhch and wlthlO concave base of the breaker"O, allarouud.",'Dhis claim was allowed, on the ground ,tJ:lllt an anythirig in ibeprior'arl. Qrie in the'oombinationooveredby the second claim is "the breaking-head, O,'constructed ,with'aconcave base, ll.S s!:io'Vn. aril.wing, alld,tJile specification shoW' 'a concave breaking-head into which the shell or trough, n, extends. The trough or n, .. TJ?,611e.qlahoscllnnoi 1::\e broadened by ehmlOatlOg or dlSregardmg any otthell'Janguage. The it folloWs upward, I+nd wlthlO the ,concave breaking-head. The :therefore, infringes' nei. 'The defend,.ther tpef:1eppnfl ;ants' ,maClilbe: does notoontain:ihe:'8.11indles with,:the-' sliding bearing mehtihneti 10 'Brown's thii'dclaimj of atijrothel'$lidirig'bearings, and the adjusting screw or step embraced in ,the"tbird>Clai:mis noffound iJl the'Jdtlfendants' '.. I ' ',' " . . ' . ' Gates' f lof the machine','jThe" fnterior ,are not "reqUired tooechilled bytlie Btd#Ji t,he;'Qatespatep,t; No. 1 is for chilled interior This ved 'Jip. iqthe,bearmgs of. the, Brown ,iYention. )(, Gates ;did, nothing,plOrel patent, and chill them. Tbe'tElstH:d6Wy!iri the reBO'i'd' shows that 'Brown and Scoville chilled segmental bearings in L'rhi<;:,g was prior to,the applic;ttion filed by for his of.wearing sur"faees! to iI. vdid fnctidn wa$' the art' long before the date. of (fhe' . }>liteM: is' valid, the'd'efendants', bear.ings', are 'net- chilled.' The cefforts:made to the maehines :lla.ten.t No. 2:;from the Brown' and ·ttJll.dlfin I1coordahce with "SOb\riHe'mitchilIes are tinsa.Wlfaet6ry,' '.'fhe defebdants" machine is,' .ip. ·Bu'bstatlce,'the old 'No. 2, Brown machine,' 'The chill in: Gates' No.2 machine is the chill in GattiS' 'Nb.' 1 patent, Gates' No.2 patent is shown in ofonec6fBrown's prior :'machines. The first claim in Gates' patentN6. 3, '(the chiefclaim in controversy,) is for a new article of manufacture, namely: "A segmental 'p6rtionOf the: babbltJted\': so tha,t:wheiHt becomeswol!n it I may, beremovedj'and a newsegmentalbeanngsubstituted in itsplaee.''' "'.!'he' 'alleged invention; the 'lDox',cavity,; but in the bab'dlitted"segrirentaVportion ofthe btaring-box.There. w.a$ n(:dnvenflion 'in ·thnsbabb.itting part ;or Rilboxh:m.vlty, and, ifther6".was, the :defendf'ant l>abbittstheentire inDer ;surfal1e of the alSsuch bearings ,hai:l;'been,treated' before.; ':/';' ) . :J::,J"J;:,:, ' , " , ", i.e;,

GAi'E$ IRON-WORKS

tI.' FRASEB.

51

The alleged invention in Gates' patent No.4 is summed up and embra-ced in the fourth claim which reads: "The shaft ofanore-crushiJ;lg machine provided with a hard metal plate on its lower end, in combination with an adjustable sliding step-block, an oil-step box, and a bearing for the sbaft, substantially as and for tbe purpose specified." Before tbis claim was allowed, the patentee was required to amend bis applica,;, tion by inserting the words, "the adjustable sliding," and the alleged infringing machine contains no such sliding block. The mere attachment of a hard metal plate on or in the lower end of the shaft, admitting that Gates was the first to do it, involved no invention. But if it did, it consisted in theimprovemellt of one of the elements of the combination, namely, tbe shaft, and did not affect the combination claim. Steel wearing, or hard metal plates, were old, and Gates did nothing m()re than any intelligent mechanic skilled in the art might have done. The shaft with the in-set plate operated in the combination just as it did before. No new or improved,result was produced. With the exception of the inset oftbe wearing plate, the drawings of the Brown & SbOville No.1 machine show the combination described in the Gates No. 4 tent. Indeed, the drawings of the old Brown & Scoville machines showGates'patent No.4 to be worthless. I find that the Brown drawings anticipate the Gates patents No.1, No.2, and No.3, and that Gates' patent No. 4, contains no claim for the insetting of tbe plate, and that that patent, too, is anticipated by the samedrawingl:l. In connection with the Gates patents, comp1l1ill!l.nt's counsel and experts have failed to give proper weight to the Rutter patent, the Brown patent, and the two Brown &: Scoville machines, especially the two latter machines. Gyrating shafts were in use before the date of any of the patents owned by the plaintiff.. The patentee simply took the old gyrating shaft, and applied common devices to it. ' . The first claim of the Rusk patent reads: "The combination, substantially as described, of soft metal pins or plugs. 0, 'with the driving gear of the grinding-mill." Rusk expressly limited himself to it soft metal pin, and his claim cannot be enlarged by construction. Thus limited, the claim is not infringed for the defendllllts' use, not a soft metal pin, but a hard cast-iron pin, and their machine does not show in'use inmachines of different the Rusk driving gear. kinds before the of the Rusk patent. The idea of the break-pin, broadly, was not original with Rusk. With the exception of the pin being somewhat more a(:cessibIe, the Raymond patent is not from the Rusk patent. ' . Briefly, these are my reasons for dismissing the bill. 'Later, I may give a fonnal opinion.· :;'

., I.,.,.