Aiken v. National Tube Co.

Decision Date06 August 1907
Docket Number6,986.,6,877
Citation157 F. 691
PartiesAIKEN v. NATIONAL TUBE CO. et al. (two cases).
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

Christy & Christy and Kline, Tolles & Goff, for complainant.

J Snowden Bell and James I. Kay, for defendant.

TAYLER District Judge.

These two cases, heard together, are brought charging infringement of patents Nos. 450,360 and 492,951, issued April 14, 1891 and March 7, 1893, respectively, to the complainant. The first is for an apparatus for conveying and cooling metal plates, the second for an apparatus for straightening metal plates. If these patents are valid, the defendants are undoubted infringers.

A prior patent, now expired, was issued to the complainant for a method of cooling metal plates, and it is one of the contentions of the defendants--perhaps the chief contention-- that, if any rights were ever acquired by complainant in connection with this process, it was by virtue of that early patent. If we consider the history of the art of handling large metal plates from the time they leave the rolls until they reach the shears, where they are trimmed and cut to suitable lengths, we find it as shown by the three patents of Aiken about as follows: Prior to Aiken's first patent issued in 1887, it had been the common custom to place these large plates, as they came hot from the rolls, one on top of another in piles or on cars, and there to permit them to remain until cool enough to be handled, when they were taken to the shears to be trimmed. As they were rolled in different sizes, they would, when thus piled, cool unequally, with the result that warping and distortion would occur, and thereby cause large waste in the shearing. To obviate this difficulty, the device covered by the patent of 1887 was invented. With the question of its novelty we are not now concerned. Briefly stated, Aiken's method illustrating his patent of 1887 for cooling metal plates was this: When the plate had made its last pass through the rolls, it was delivered upon what he called a 'roller,' or feed table, extending from the rolls to the shears. This table was simply a series of rollers at suitable distances from each other, and operated by proper mechanism. The plate having been delivered on to the roller table, the rollers, revolving at slow speed, carried the plate slowly along to the shears. In its progress the plate was exposed to the air on all sides, and as it was never stationary, and the points of support were constantly changing, it had no opportunity to bend or buckle by its own weight even if hot enough to do so. The result claimed was a uniform cooling. If, when the end of the table was reached, the plate was not sufficiently cooled, the rollers were reversed, and the plate was carried back and forth until suitably cooled. This device was sufficient for its immediate purpose, but it required considerable space longitudinally, and it did not suitably dispose of the plate either by keeping it out of the way of its successor or by conveying it to the shears. To meet this difficulty the patent of 1891-- the first patent in suit-- was taken out. This patent covered a 'table for conveying and cooling' metal plates. The device consisted of the combination of two conveying tables provided with driven rollers, and extending substantially parallel to each other, one table leading from the rolls and the other table leading to the shears, with transfer mechanism adapted to transfer the plates from one table to the other, and giving opportunity to cool the plate while being thus transferred. The transfer mechanism is simple in its operation, though complicated in its details. The general operation of the apparatus is as follows: The plate, having made its last pass through the rolls, is conveyed on to the roller table as in the previous device, and, while there, carried back and forth until sufficiently stiffened and the warped and buckled portions straightened.

Then the transfer mechanism is put into operation. Heavy endless sprocket chains passing from the outside of the first roller table over to the shears table are elevated so as to lift the stiffened plate above the rollers, and carry it at such speed and in such manner as may be desired over to the shears table, where, by lowering the chains, the plate comes to rest, thereafter to be carried along this table to the shears. I have not attempted to do more than sketch in outline this device and its operation. Its relation to the preceding patent is apparent, and its development obvious.

But something remained yet to be done before...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • National Tube Co. v. Aiken
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • July 11, 1908
    ...aggregation. The court below sustained both patents and found both infringed. The opinion was by Tayler, District Judge, and is reported in 157 F. 691. patents are for apparatus relating to the making of metal plates by rolling mills. The patent of 1893, upon which the first suit was brough......
  • Irving v. KERLOW STEEL FLOORING CO.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • December 29, 1938
    ...Caton Printing Co. v. Daniels Mfg. Co., 7 Cir., 72 F.2d 993) on the other and their reference to different industries (Aiken v. National Tube Co., C.C., 157 F. 691) or branches (Berry v. Robertson, supra) of the same industry are only expressions of this same thought (and for collection of ......
  • Nathan Mfg. Co. v. Delaware, L. & W R. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • November 7, 1907
    ... ... As it rises therein it lifts the oil till the ... latter flows over the top of the oil tube, ... [157 F. 687] ... E. and ... down the same to the bottom of the sight feed glass, ... ...
  • National Tube Co. v. Aiken
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • November 16, 1907
    ...District of Ohio. J. Snowden Bell and James I. Kay, for petitioners. Christy & Christy, for respondent. No opinion. Petition denied. See 157 F. 691. ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT