Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

material as has been mentioned. A U-shaped clamping piece—that is, a curved clamping piece—is not only old in this art, but in all arts where clamping pieces are used. Such a form of clamping piece for such a purpose as is described in the specifications and placed on such a ledge above the flange, and resting thereon and fastened to the body of the insulating material by screws or similar devices, would occur to any one skilled in this or any other art involving mechanical skill or discernment. I cannot find invention disclosed in this claim, and hold it invalid.

There will be a decree that claims 5 and 7 of the patent in suit are valid and infringed by defendant, and that claim 6 thereof is void.

GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V. BULLOCK ELECTRIC MFG. CO. et al.

(Circuit Court, s. D. Ohio, W. D. February 19, 1906.)

No. 5,654.

PATENTS-INFRINGEMENT-ARMATURE CORE.

The Reist patent, No. 508,637, for an armature core was not antici. pated and discloses invention. Also held infringed.

In Equity. Suit for infringement of Claims, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8, of letters patent No. 508,637, granted to the General Electric Company, November 14, 1893, as the assignee of Henry G. Reist.

Richardson, Herrick & Neave, for complainant.
Stem, Heidman & Mehehope and C. V. Edwards, for defendant.

THOMPSON, District Judge. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8, read as follows:

“(1) A laminated armature core built up in sections, and separators attached to the laminæ between the two consecutive sections, as and for the purpose described.

“(2) In an armature core the combination with sections built up of laminæ, of separators consisting of ribs of metal between said sections, and in contact with adjacent laminæ whereby ventilating space is afforded between the inner and outer surfaces of said core, as described.

“(4) In a toothed armature core built up of laminated sections, separators consisting of ribs extending outwardly from the teeth on one of said sections to the corresponding teeth on the adjacent section, whereby said sections are mutually supported and air passages radial to the center of said core afforded, as and for the purpose specified.

“(5) An armature core consisting of laminæ arranged side by side and separators attached to certain of the laminæ to form a ventilating space or spaces in the core.

“(6) An armature core consisting of layers of laminæ built up in sections or bundles, and pronged or skeleton separators attached to an outside lamina of each of said sections, whereby ventilating space is provided between adjacent sections, as described.

(8) In an armature a sheet or lamina having teeth or projections for the reception of the armature coils or armature conductors, and metal separators riveted or otherwise secured thereto, said separators extending toward the points or free ends of said teeth or projections."

Reist claims to "have invented a new and useful improvement in the contruction of armature-cores * * * whereby ample ventilation is obtained for dissipating the heat generated thereon without detri

inent to the inductive qualities of the core, and without materially increasing the expense of construction.”

The heating of the armatures greatly impairs the efficiency and capacity of the machine and prior to the patent in suit, many patents were granted covering schemes of ventilation, as means for dissipating the heat, none of which proved to be of much value or usefulness, for they usually involved such a reduction of the laminated iron of the core, as to cause a greater impairment of the efficiency and capacity of the machine than before, and the evidence shows, as a consequence, that for five or six years prior to the granting of the patent in suit, their use was practically abandoned.

The Reist method of ventilation supplied the want and furnished a means for dissipating the heat which did not impair, but increased the efficiency and capacity of the machine, without materially increasing the expense of construction, but the defendant contends that, in the light of the prior art, invention was not required to produce this method, but only the skill of

the experienced mechanic. This contention cannot be sustained. The prior art fully advised Reist of the difficulties attending the undertaking, but afforded him little aid in overcoming them. In view of magnetic and electrical conditions, which imposed limitations that had theretofore prevented a successful solution of the problem, more than mere mechanical skill was required to fashion the separator, fix its location, and make the adjustments to its surroundings necessary to meet these conditions and establish his scheme of ventilation. Space for the ventilation ducts could only be obtained by the removal of iron from the core, and success depended upon securing adequate ventilation without overbalancing loss caused by the removal of the iron, and the question presented was whether, under these conditions, success was possible. If possible, it required an economical use of space and the employment of devices and appliances consistent therewith, not known to the prior art. Reist answered the question in the affirmative, and supplied the means for accomplishing the desired result, and his contribution to the art was new and useful. His scheme was not anticipated by Kapp, Crompton, Cohen, or Brown.

The evidence shows that the defendant company's construction No. 1 infringes claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8, and that its construction No. 2 infringes claims No. 2, 4, and 6. No case is made against the defendant George Bullock.

There will be a decree for the complainant against the Bullock Electric Manufacturing Company, as prayed.

GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. v. BULLOCK ELECTRIC MFG. CO. et al. (Circuit Court, S. D. Ohio, W. D. February 19, 1906.)

No. 5,655. PATENTS-INVENTION-ARMATURE.

The Reist patent, No. 573,107, for securing field magnet poles, is void for lack of patentable invention. In Equity. Suit for alleged infringement of letters patent No. 573,107 granted to the General Electric Company December 15, 1896, as the assignee of Henry G. Reist.

Richardson, Herrick & Neave, for complainant.
Stem, Heidman & Mehehope and C. V. Edwards, for defendant.

THOMPSON, District Judge. The claims of the patent are as follows:

“(1) The combination with a revolving field magnet structure, of polepieces separated from each other, and arranged on the periphery of said fieldmagnet structure, said pole-pieces being composed of laminated material, and being dovetailed into the periphery of said revolving structure, and means for taking up the play of the parts.

(2) The combination with a revolving field-magnet structure, of polepieces projecting from the periphery of said field-magnet structure and separated from each other, said pole-pieces being each composed of a bundle of laminæ, and outside clamping-plates, the several parts being bolted together, the pole-pieces being dovetailed to the periphery of said revolving structure, and keys for taking up the play of the parts, as herein set forth."

In the specification, the alleged invention is described as follows:

"My invention relates to securing pole-pieces to revolving field-magnet structures, particularly in alternating-current dynamos, where the field-magnet poles are made of assembled laminations of sheet iron. To this end I make the laminations with a dovetailed tenon upon the ends, so that when they are assembled the pole-piece may be slipped sideways into the field-magnet structure. I then insert keys, so as to take up any lost motion between the polepiece and the field-magnet; the end plates of the poles being provided with overhanging lips or flanges which serve to retain the field-magnet coils in place. I may then remove any field-magnet coil or any pole piece without removing the field-magnet structure as a whole. It is manifest that this invention may take a number of forms, all embodying the same general characteristics."

Four of the many different forms are shown in the drawings. The use of larger machines, in the course of the development of the art, called for stronger means for fastening the pole-pieces to the yoke, but which would be consistent with the maintenance of the magnetic and electric conditions and the advantages secured by such structures as that of the Parcelle patent, No. 463,704. The problem was purely a mechanical one, and the mechanic arts afforded a broad field for the selection of such means, and Reist chose therefrom a well-known method, that of the dovetail and key, which permits the use of many different forms, "all embodying the same general characteristics,” four of which he employs, and, in addition, claims the exclusive right to employ the one used by the defendant and necessarily all forms thereof used for the same purpose.

Upon his own showing, the invention claimed lies in the adaptation of the dovetail and key method to the fastening of the pole-piece to the yoke. The selection of this well-known method did not require the exercise of the inventive faculty and no more difficulties attended its adaptation than usually follow its employment in numerous devices of the mechanic arts. When the conditions are known, the adaptation, usually, may safely be intrusted to the skilled mechanic. It is a problem for the electrical engineer and the skilled mechanic, and not for the inventor.

Patentable invention is not shown, and the bill will be dismissed.

GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. v. BULLOCK ELECTRIC MFG. CO. et al.

. (Circuit Court, S. D. Ohio, W. D. February 19, 1906.)

No. 5,653. PATENTS-INVENTION-ELECTRIC MOTOR.

The Parcelle patent, No. 463,704, for an electric motor and dynamo, is void for lack of patentable invention; the manner of fastening the yoke and the laminated core, which is its essential feature, having been adapted from prior devices without change of form or functions of the parts. In Equity. Suit for alleged infringement of claim 1 of letters patent No. 463,704, granted to Albert L. Parcelle, November 24, 1891, and now owned by the complainant.

Richardson, Herrick & Neave, for complainant.
Stem, Heidman & Mehehope and C. V. Edwards, for defendant.
THOMPSON, District Judge. Claim 1 reads as follows:

“(1) The combination, with the yoke, of a laminated core, the bar, 'C' passing through the laminations of the core, and a securing bolt or bolts passing through the yoke and into said bar."

The elements of the combination are the yoke, the laminated core, and the means for securely fastening the core to the yoke. Prior to the date of the patent in suit, the means for such fastening, known to the art, consisted in (1) making the cores integral with the yoke and laminating the whole structure; (2) casting the laminated core into the yoke; (3) screwing bolts directly into the laminated core; and (4) bolting into the side plates of the core. In the device of the patent in suit the fastening is made by bolting directly into the laminated core, and it is claimed that the manner in which it is done shows invention. The instability of the material and the difficulty of forming threads in the hole made the old method inefficient, and to meet this situation Parcelle presented a different method, which furnished a much stronger fastening. The employment of bar, C, of claim 1, is the distinguishing feature of this method, and the one upon which the question of patentable invention turns. Its office and purpose, as defined by the complainant's expert, Bentley, is :

“The maintenance of the form of the pole-piece and the connection of it to the yoke in a manner which will subserve the electrical and magnetic requirements.”

In the light of the prior art, as illustrated by the teachings of the inventions of Schmid, Storey, Bradley, and Dreskell, no question of interference, with the prevailing electrical and magnetic requirements, was presented, by the employment of the bar, C; and the problem to be solved-namely, how to provide a stronger, more rigid, more reliable union between the yoke and the cores—was merely one of mechanical construction. It was solved by transferring from the mechanical arts a well-known device employed in practically the same manner by Dodge in the pulley covering device of his letters patent No. 348,270, dated August 31, 1886. No change in form had to be made to adapt the device to the new application. No difficulties of adaptation had to be cleared away (see Standard C. & W. Co. v. Caster S. Co., 113 Fed. 164, 51 C. C. A. 109), in order to apply it to the use in question, and it performs the same function in both uses of uniting and maintaining the connection of the parts. Its existence was within the knowledge, and its transference within the capacity, of the skilled mechanic, without invention.

Patentable invention is not shown, and the bill will be dismissed.

UNITED STATES v. COLLINS.

(District Court, D. Oregon. May 14, 1906.)

No. 4,855.

1. CONTEMPT-COMMITMENT—EXPIRATION OF ORDER. ·

Where accused was committed for contempt for his refusal to appear as a witness before a grand jury and there produce certain records, etc., in response to a subpoena duces tecum, the term during which he could be imprisoned under such order expired on the discharge of the grand jury.

[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 10, Cent. Dig. Contempt, $$

253–254.] 2. SAME-PURGING CONTEMPT.

Where accused was imprisoned for his refusal to obey a subpæna requiring him to appear and produce records before a grand jury, and he remained recalcitrant until after the grand jury was discharged, he was not thereby purged of his contempt and was subject to sentence to imprisonment for a specified term.

[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 10, Cent. Dig. Contempt, $$

253-254.] 3. WITNESSES-INCRIMINATING QUESTION_BOOKS AND PAPERS-PRODUCTION.

Where accused was subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury, and to produce books, papers, and files of a certain firm, of which he was a member, on the investigation of a charge against the members of such firm for conspiracy to defraud the government, accused could not refuse to appear and produce such books and papers because they were selfincriminating, but was bound to produce the records and, after being sworn as a witness, object that the documents produced would tend to his incrimination, and therefore insist on his constitutional guaranty that their contents be not disclosed.

[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 50, Cent. Dig. Witnesses, 88 1038-1040.]

See 145 Fed. 709.
W. C. Bristol, U. S. Atty.
L. M. Curl and Percy R. Kelly, for defendant.

« AnteriorContinuar »