« AnteriorContinuar »
therein assumed which were not, according to our understanding, sustained by the record, if it was the same as it is here. For instance, it is said at page 604 of 128 Fed., and page 112 of 64 C. C. A., referring to the Bullier burner:
"This burner is in many respects strikingly like that in the present suit. There are, however, these radical differences in construction: The air passages in the Bullier burner are located at such a distance below the head as to afford an opportunity for, if not to necessarily cause, a thorough mixing of the air and gas, while in the patent in suit the small chamber and orifice are so located at the uppermost end of the burner as to apparently prevent such mixing.”
Now, as we have pointed out, Dolan did not state that his air ducts were at the uppermost end of his burner. He stated only that they came in between the constriction, C, at the lower end of the chamber and the orifice. And this was the very form of Bullier's burner shown in figure 1 of his addition of June 12, 1896, above set forth. Neither Bullier or Dolan states the length of his burner nor the distance of the air openings from the orifice. Neither states the size of his burners, but, whatever that might be, the location of the air openings on the chamber as shown by the respective drawings of Dolan and in Bullier's Addition, figure 1, is about the middle of the length of the chamber in each case, and these drawings are the only means we have of knowing where each would put them. From these it would appear, and especially from Bullier's figure 3 in his original patent, that the air ducts came in nearer to the orifice than do Dolan's, and in Bullier's figure 5 the circular air duct comes in just below the sides of the orifice, with the result of shielding the orifice from deposits as we have before shown. And the whole matter may be summed up in this: That from all that appears the mixing of the gas and air was as likely to occur in Dolan's as in Bullier's and so of the forming of an envelope for the protection of the orifice. The opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit does not deal with the necessity of a definite statement of the locality of the air ducts on the chamber to differentiate his burner from earlier structures. In dealing with the subject of the amendment of the application, that court apparently held that because it did not appear that other inventors whose rights would be prejudiced had entered the field, and because the original drawings sufficiently show and suggest the claims finally made, the amendment was not invalid. As to the first reason, while it is true that in the case cited (Railroad Co. v. Sayles, 97 U. S. 554, 24 L. Ed. 1053) Mr. Justice Bradley referred to the fact that other inventors might be prejudiced by the amendment as a reason for denying its validity, yet that is not assigned as the only reason. It was held by this court in Michigan Central R. Co. v. Consolidated Car Heating Co., supra, that an amendment which brought in the substance of the invention without the verification required by the statute was unauthorized and invalid. We regret to differ from the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, but we could not agree without surrendering our own judgment.
Our conclusion is that the decree should be reversed, and the bill dismissed, with costs in the court below and in this court.
AMERICAN LAVA CO. et al. V. KIRSCHBERGER et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. July 20, 1907.)
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Tennessee.
Charles Neave, for appellants.
SEVERENS, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal by the defendant below from an order granting a preliminary injunction in a suit for the infringement of the Dolan patent, No. 589,342.
The suit is one coming from the same court as did case No. 1,642, American Lava Co. v. Steward (just decided) 155 Fed. 731, and the order appealed from was doubtless based upon the holding in that case that the Dolan patent was valid. The two causes were heard together in this court. The conclusion which we have announced in the other case is decisive of this, and the order appealed from will be reversed, with a direction to dismiss the bill with the costs of both
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V. BULLOCK ELECTRIC & MFG. CO.
(Circuit Court, D. New Jersey. August 12, 1907.) 1. PATENTS-INFRINGEMENT-ARMATURES.
The Morrow patent, No. 504,401, for an armature for dynamo electric machines, claim 2, which covers an armature core comprising layers of segmental laminæ dovetailed to an internal supporting shell, the function of the dovetail connection being to lock the laminæ to the spider for driving purposes, and also to do so in such manner that they cannot be driven from the spider by centrifugal force, was not anticipated as
to the latter feature, and discloses patentable novelty; also held infringed. 2. SAME-ANTICIPATION.
The Reist patent, No. 559,910, for an armature for a dynamo electric machine, is void for anticipation as to all three of its claims. Claim 2, if possibly novel, held not infringed.
In Equity. On final hearing.
LANNING, District Judge. The complainant is the owner of the Morrow patent, No. 504,401, and of the Reist patent, No. 559,910, each for an armature for dynamo electric machines. They are capable of conjoint use. Each patent was issued to the complainant as assignee of the inventor. The defendant is charged with their infringement, and the defense set up as to each patent is invalidity of the patent and noninfringement.
The Morrow patent was applied for May 13, 1893, and granted to the complainant, as Morrow's assignee, September 5, 1893. The figures accompanying the patent are as follows:
FIG_4In the specification of the patent Morrow says: "My invention relates to the construction of armatures; its object being to provide efficient and economical means for building up a laminated core and securing it to its support or carrier. In carrying out my invention I provide an internal cylindrical supporting shell, preferably carried by the usual armature spiders keyed to a shaft, and on the outer surface of said supporting shell longitudinal grooves are cut, into which corresponding projections on the inner surface of an annular armature core are adapted to fit, preferably making a dovetail or undercut joint. The core itself is composed of segmental laminæ of such proportions that a predetermined number of
them make one layer of the core; and in adjacent layers the segments are so arranged as to break joints. The said segments are provided at their inner edges with projections adapted to fit the grooves on the supporting shell, and registering with each other when the core is assembled. Referring to Fig. 1, the cylindrical supporting shell A, is carried on spiders, A1, keyed to a shaft, A2, in the ordinary manner. At regular intervals along the outer surface of said supporting shell, A, are longitudinal undercut grooves, a, into which fit the dovetail projections, b, on the laminæ, B. In making up an armature, the spiders and supporting shell are first assembled, and the laminæ of sheet iron punched out in the shape indicated in Fig. I are slipped over the surface of the said shell, with the projections, a, in the grooves, b. After one layer is in place, another, breaking joints with the first, is put on, and so on, until the armature is completed. The dotted lines in Fig. i indicate the edges of the laminæ in successive layers, showing the manner of breaking joints. It is obviously unnecessary to have the dovetail projections exactly fit the grooves, as shown in Fig. 1, and this is, moreover, manifestly undesirable, since much more care is thereby rendered necessary both in punching the laminæ and in finishing the grooves. Slight modifications are therefore shown in Figs. 2, 3, and 4. In Fig. 2 the outer corners of projection, b, are rounded as shown at bi, while the outer edges of the groove, a, are rounded as shown at ai. A firm connection is thus afforded between the parts by the fit of the beveled edges of the groove and projection, while the necessity of a perfect fit at the acute angles, which would be difficult of attainment, is obviated. In Fig. 3, instead of rounding the edges of the groove, a, the laminæ are punched so as to have a recess, b2, at the inner acute angles of the dovetail projections. In all of these arrangements, however, the projection, b, extends to the bottom of the groove, a, necessitating a careful milling thereof, as well as a smooth edge on said projection, in order to render the parts readily assembled. It is therefore preferable to chamber the groove, as shown at b3 in Fig. 4.
I am aware of patent No. 493,337, granted to Horace F. Parshall March 14, 1893, and therefore do not claim broadly an annular core supported by and dovetailed to an internal cylindrical support, but confine myself to a core made up of segmental laminæ punched with internal dovetail projections. It is obviously of material advantage to make the laminæ segmental, rather than annular, since the material from which they are punched can in this way be cut much less to waste, while by so assembling consecutive layers as to break joints, as above set forth, a practically solid structure is obtained. A further improvement consists in the modifications in the shape of the dovetail connections, as described, which render the parts much more readily assembled. By making the core with internal dovetail projections integral therewith, a greater depth of free iron for the traverse of magnetism is obtained.”
The patent has three claims, but the second claim only is alieged to be infringed. That claim is as follows:
“An armature core comprising layers of segmental laminæ dovetailed to an internal supporting shell, in which the segments in consecutive layers break joints, substantially as described."
Morrow was not the first to use segmental laminæ in building up armature cores. Nor was he the first to use connecting projections and grooves between the spider and the laminæ of an armature core. The British patent, No. 238, issued July 6, 1889, to Gibbs & Fesquet; the Geisenhoner patent, No. 414,900, dated November 12, 1889; the British patent, No. 19,011, issued October 18, 1890, to Hopkinson; the British patent, No. 4,858, issued February 7, 1891, to Kapp; the Lundell patent No. 461,795, dated October 20, 1891; and the Smith patent, No. 492,244, dated February 21, 1893—all describe segmental laminæ so assembled as to break joints. In all of these patents of the prior art, however, except possibly Hopkinson and Smith, the segmental laminæ are fastened to the frame of the armature by bolts running
transversely through the laminæ and parallel with the shaft of the spider or armature. In Hopkinson, the method of fastening the laminæ to the frame of the armature is not described, unless it be in the language of the specification, which declares that:
"The friction between the plates is sufficient to keep them in place just as well as if they were entire rings."
In Smith's patent the inner peripheries of the laminæ are welded together, thus obviating the necessity of bolts. In none of the abovementioned patents are there any dovetail connections between the spider and the armature.
In British patent No. 4,302, issued to Crompton March 3, 1884, and in United States patent No. 387,343, issued to Crompton August 7, 1888, the laminæ are complete annuli, and are provided on their inner peripheries with dovetail grooves, into which are fitted the dovetail ends of the arms of the spider. The arms, however, at their inner ends, fit into the hub that surrounds the shaft in such fashion that the hub may be withdrawn, leaving the arms attached to and held in the laminæ by reason of their dovetail connections with the laminæ. In the specification of each of these Crompton patents it is said:
“This withdrawal of the central hub or hubs (as the case may be) greatly facilitates the winding of the armature coils onto the core. It also facilitates the insulation of the wires, and afterwards permits of easier access to the internal surface of the ring-core than has hitherto been the case, and thus lessens the cost of repairs or renewals of the coils."
And in the Parshall patent, No. 493,337, dated March 14, 1893, the laminæ are complete annuli. The inner periphery of each of the annuli contains a series of notches or grooves, which the patent declares are "preferably of a dovetail or undercut shape.” The specification further says:
“The notches are similarly arranged in all the disks, so that when the disks are assembled the notches will register and form grooves running lengthwise of the core."
Longitudinal dovetail grooves are also cut in the outer surface of the spider. When the laminæ are assembled on the spider and properly arranged, the dovetail grooves in the spider and those in the laminæ are opposite to each other, and into them keys are fitted, though the specification says the keys "may be cast integral with the shell,” or spider. The keys are made somewhat smaller than the grooves, and are fastened in the grooves by Babbitt metal or similar material poured therein. The patentee says:
"It is preferable to dovetail the grooves and keys, though any suitable shape may be given to them.”
This reference to the prior art is sufficient to present for intelligent consideration the question as to whether the Morrow patent contains any patentable novelty. It is conceded by the complainant that there was nothing novel in Morrow's use of segmental laminæ. It is also contended by the defendant that there was nothing novel in Morrow's use of the dovetail connections between the spider and the laminæ. But it will be observed that the functions of the dovetail grooves of the two Crompton patents are, first, to receive the ends of the spider arms for a driving purpose, and, second, to hold the arms in place when