National Tube Co. v. Aiken
Decision Date | 11 July 1908 |
Docket Number | 1,766.,1,765 |
Citation | 163 F. 254 |
Parties | NATIONAL TUBE CO. v. AIKEN. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
James I. Kay and J. Snowden Bell, for appellant.
Marshall A. Christy, for appellee.
Before LURTON, SEVERENS, and RICHARDS, Circuit Judges.
These two appeals have been heard together, as they were in the court below. The first case, No. 1,765, was for an infringement of patent No. 492,951, issued March 7, 1893, to the appellee, Henry Aiken. The other involves the infringement of patent No. 450,360, issued April 14, 1891, to the same inventor. The defendants in each suit are the same and the infringement is a single structure which infringes both patents. The defenses are that patent No. 450,360 is anticipated by expired patent No. 369,154 issued August 30, 1887, to the same inventor, and that the latter patent, No. 492,951, includes no improvement constituting patentable invention over No. 450,360 and is for a mere 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.
Both patents are for apparatus relating to the making of metal plates by rolling mills. The patent of 1893, upon which the first suit was brought, is entitled 'An apparatus for straightening metal plates. ' The invention is described by the patentee in his specifications as 'mainly' consisting:
'In the combination with a straightening press for the plates, of a conveying table or carrier which leads up to the straightening press lengthwise thereof, so as to bring the plates from the rolls to or in close proximity to the press; and also in the combination with devices, of a transfer mechanism adapted to shift the plates from the conveying table to the press.'
The conceded fact is that the combination of this 1893 patent includes the entire device of the 1891 patent, with the addition of an interposed improved straightening press with suitable appliances for its operation in connection with the two parallel feeding and conveying tables. The 1893 patent is to that extent tributary to the 1891 patent, for it is not possible to use the entire device without using that of the earlier patent. The evidence, indeed, shows that the entire apparatus of the 1893 patent was conceived before either patent issued; but the inventor, having an order for a mill which did not desire the straightening press, made and patented those parts of his invention which covered his improved conveying and cooling tables, being the subject of his 1891 patent, and later applied for and obtained the patent of 1893. This is, however, not a matter of vital importance, for if the combination of the latter patent is a new combination and not a mere aggregation, and the results are new and useful in a patentable sense, the patent will stand, though every element is old. Nevertheless, it is difficult to justly estimate the advantages of the apparatus of 1893 without distinguishing between those which are attributable alone to that part of the device which is covered by the earlier patent and those which result only from the added straightening press. This comes about because the inventor divided his invention instead of patenting his entire invention in one patent. This division has also lent color and seriousness to the contention that the addition of a straightening press to the device of 1891 constitutes an aggregation and not a true mechanical combination. The solution of this question of aggregation will be facilitated if we shall first understand the device of the 1891 patent.
Aiken's first step in this matter of improving the methods for cooling hot metal plates is shown by his method patent of 1887. The patent has long since expired, and its only importance lies in the contention that the apparatus described therein for operating under Aiken's method, and the statements of the patentee as to a proper mechanism, constitute a disclosure which would enable any one skilled in the iron rolling business to have made the apparatus covered by Aiken's 1891 patent. The specifications of the 1887 patent disclose the prior methods for cooling plates. The patentee says:
The method which Aiken proposed to substitute for the old and clumsy method was, as stated in the single claim of his patent, that of conveying the hot plates singly 'through the atmosphere upon moving surfaces, where they are exposed to the atmosphere on all sides; the points of support constantly changing. * * * ' To illustrate how this method might be carried out, he points out that, when the metal sheets or plates are delivered in the usual way from the rolls upon the usual rolling mill feeding table, there should be provided 'adjacent to the table, upon which the plate is delivered after the last pass, and preferably in line with said feed table, * * * a roller table of considerable length, terminating preferably at or near the shears. ' 'This roller table,' he says, 'is a series of rollers at suitable distances apart operated by proper mechanism. ' An apparatus which he constructed before applying for his patent is shown and described. That apparatus was made for and long operated in the Homestead Rolling Mill. It was longitudinally a monster, 300 feet long, requiring, of course, very great space. One end connected with the usual feed table upon which the plates were first delivered from the rolls. The other terminated at the shears, where the jagged edges were to be cut off and the plates given the shape desired. Somewhere between the feed table and the shears, and after the plates had stiffened, they were to be stopped, and the lines marked to be followed by the shears. The operation, as he described it, was this:
In addition to the great space longitudinally required for a plant such as shown in the 1887 patent, impracticable in many mills, the tonnage capacity of such a mechanism was necessarily limited by its length. It could cool no more plates having a width of 30 inches than it could of plates of twice that width. As plates of varying width are rolled, it was economically important that the tonnage capacity of the apparatus for cooling and shearing should not be diminished when narrow sheets were to be rolled. To meet these objections, Aiken designed the apparatus of the 1893 patent, but divided his invention, as before stated, so as to include in his first patent only the improved arrangement for carrying and cooling such plates. The patent of 1891 is entitled a 'Table for conveying and cooling metal plates. ' The patentee, in his specifications, says:
'The object of my invention is to provide means for conveying plates from the rolls to the shears at which their edges are trimmed, and for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Proudfit Loose Leaf Co. v. Kalamazoo Loose Leaf Binder Co.
... ... Institute (C.C.A. 6) 123 F. 67, 72, 60 C.C.A. 37, and ... cases cited; Natl. Tube Co. v. Aiken (C.C.A. 6) 163 ... F. 254, 260, 91 C.C.A. 114; Herman v. Youngstown Car Mfg ... ...
-
Stoody Co. v. Mills Alloys, 7059.
...invention, but merely, as we have seen, "evidence" of it. Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins, supra; Knapp v. Morss, supra; National Tube Co. v. Aiken (C. C. A. 6) 163 F. 254, 261. In the third place, in the language of Mr. Justice Strong, in Hailes v. Van Wormer, supra, "the results must be a pro......
-
Morgan Engineering Co. v. Alliance Mach. Co.
... ... [176 F. 109] ... See ... decision of this court in National Tube Co. v ... Aiken, 163 F. 254, 258, 91 C.C.A. 114; also Eames v ... Andrews, 122 U.S. 40, ... ...
-
Gas Machinery Co. v. United Gas Improvement Co.
... ... [14] These are ... not particularly helpful here ... In ... National Co. v. Powers Co. (C.C.A. 7) 160 F. 460, ... 463, 87 C.C.A. 444, 447, it was held that there could ... 464; ... Western Co. v. North, 135 F. 79, 67 C.C.A. 553; National Co ... v. Aiken, 163 F. 254, 91 C.C.A. 114; Sheffield Co. v ... D'Arcy, 194 F. 686, 116 C.C.A. 322; Houser v ... ...