Dunham Co. v. Cobb
| Decision Date | 17 May 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 4768.,4768. |
| Citation | 19 F.2d 328 |
| Parties | DUNHAM CO. et al. v. COBB. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Samuel W. Banning and George L. Wilkinson, both of Chicago, Ill. (Harry P. Doolittle, of Chicago, Ill., on the brief), for appellants.
H. A. Toulmin and H. A. Toulmin, Jr., both of Dayton, Ohio, for appellee.
Before DENISON and MOORMAN, Circuit Judges, and SIMONS, District Judge.
The two patents in suit relate to a land roller pulverizer; the Dunham reissue patent being directed to the general structure of the implement, and the Wagner patent to certain details involving the quick detachability of the frame members to permit a removal or substitution of roller disks. The so-called roller pulverizer is an agricultural implement which comprises a front rank of roller disks furnishing an uninterrupted, corrugated surface from one end of the roller to the other, and a similar rear rank of smaller roller disks, with the corrugations arranged in staggered relation to the corrugations of the front rank. The axles of the two ranks are journaled in the ends of rocking side frames, which are connected to the main frame by pivot bolts, so that the frames and rollers formed by the disks are adapted to oscillate about an axis, which is between the vertical planes passing through the axes of the shafts of the disks, whereby the superimposed weight is distributed to both ranks.
The oscillatory mounting of the two rollers constitutes the main feature of the invention, and is the subject of claim 3, the principal claim of the patent. The pivot bolt also constitutes the draft connection between the main frame and the side frames, and the point of this connection is located above the plane which passes through the axes of the shafts of the front and rear ranks, causing greater draft strain to be applied to the front rank of roller disks than to the rear rank; the object being to increase the crushing and pulverizing action of the front roller disks. This point of connection is also located in advance of the center, between the shafts of the two ranks, in order to impose greater dead weight upon the front rank. These features are claimed to be covered in claims 1 and 4 of the patent. The claims of the Dunham patent in suit are set forth in the margin.1
Defendant's implement employs similar front and rear ranks of roller disks, a main frame which receives and distributes the weight and the draft strain between the front and rear ranks, an arched end frame mounted in a pivotal manner on the main frame; it being claimed by the plaintiff that such frames are adapted to oscillate around an axis which is between the vertical planes passing through the shafts of the front and rear ranks, and that the draft connection between the main frame and the oscillating frames affords a means similar to that of the patented structure for proportional distribution of both superimposed weight and draft strain between the front and rear ranks. It is claimed that such connection is similar in function, and that the mechanisms are equivalent, in securing the claimed novel results disclosed in the Dunham patent. Defendant relies upon a number of defenses, including noninfringement, invalidity, due to anticipation by the prior art, and lack of invention.
The District Court recognizing the Dunham patent as one granted in a very old art, and contributing but slight advancement to that art, considered that claim 3, the principal claim of the patent in suit, must be narrowly construed, and, so construed, to be limited to the physical pivoting of the rocking side frames upon the draft connection with the main frame. Making application of such interpretation, there appeared to be a wide difference between the single pivotal connection shown in the plaintiff's structure and the free floating connection in the alleged infringing device. Conceding, apparently with reluctance, but not deciding, that there might be some invention in the mounting of the single pivot of the plaintiff's oscillating frame in front of the center between the vertical axes of the front and rear cylinders, and this feature not being present in the alleged infringing structure, the court dismissed the bill because of noninfringement.
If we were to concede any novelty and invention to the Dunham patent in suit, and were to consider rather more broadly the claims of the patent as covering any device wherein the axis of oscillation of the secondary pivoted frame is located between vertical planes passing through the axes of the shafts, it would perhaps not be so clear to us, as it was to the District Judge, that there was no such axis of oscillation in the alleged infringing structure, even though it did not use the single pivot bolt shown in the plaintiff's implement. In view of the fact, however, that we base our decision upon considerations other than infringement, we confine our discussion to other issues involved.
Dunham was admittedly working in a very old art. His roller pulverizer was designed to prepare the soil for cultivation in a single operation by one implement, which cut the clods and at the same time...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Endevco Corporation v. Chicago Dynamic Industries, Inc.
...Inc. v. U. S. Slicing Mach. Co., 21 F. 2d 812 at 813 (CA7); Allied Wheel Products, Inc. v. Rude, 206 F.2d 752 at 756 (CA 6); Dunham Co. v. Cobb, 19 F.2d 328 (CA 6). 19. The trend of modern decisions including those of the United States Supreme Court is to widen the scope of the prior art wh......
-
De Burgh v. KINDEL FURNITURE COMPANY, Civ. A. No. 1598.
...a new thing merely because the old instrumentality has been used for a different purpose. "Long ago, we came to the view in Dunham Co. v. Cobb, 6 Cir., 19 F.2d 328, that where a specialized art is merely the offspring of a more generic art it is entitled, by right of descent, to the previou......
-
Allied Wheel Products v. Rude
...813; Copeman Laboratories Co. v. General Plastics Corp., 7 Cir., 149 F.2d 962; Wallace v. Mandel Bros., Inc., supra. In Dunham Co. v. Cobb, 6 Cir., 19 F.2d 328, 329, the patent in suit, which the court held invalid for want of invention, was for an agricultural implement, designated as a la......
-
United States Gypsum Co. v. CONSOLIDATED EXP. MET. COMPANIES
...here asserted. See, also, Cuno Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84, 91 and 92, 62 S.Ct. 37, 86 L.Ed. 58; Dunham Co. v. Cobb, 6 Cir., 19 F.2d 328; Perfect Circle Co. v. Hastings Mfg. Co., supra. Our decision in Lakewood Engineering Co. v. Walker, 6 Cir., 23 F.2d 623, has often been......