Brothers v. Lidgerwood Mfg. Co.

• Citation: 223 F. 359
• Decision Date: 09 March 1915
• Docket Number: 161.
• Parties: BROTHERS v. LIDGERWOOD MFG. CO.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

223 F. 359

BROTHERS v. LIDGERWOOD MFG. CO.

No. 161.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 9, 1915

W. F Brothers, in pro. per.

Livingston Gifford, Leavitt J. Hunt, George W. Betts, Jr., and Charles S. Jones, all of New York City, for defendant in error.

Before LACOMBE, COXE, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

LACOMBE Circuit Judge.

At the close of the trial the court directed a verdict for the defendant. After it had been announced that this disposition would be made of the case, the court at the request of the complainant charged the jury and told them to bring in a verdict, apparently on the theory that if it were for defendant it would end the case, but if it were for the complainant it would be set aside and verdict directed as had been indicated. The jury disagreed; thereupon verdict was directed. These superfluous proceedings are of no importance. If the condition of the cause was such when the testimony closed that verdict should have been directed for defendant without passing on any disputed question of fact, the judgment should be affirmed; otherwise it should be reversed.

It is well settled that when the validity of a patent is to be determined and its claim construed by reference to prior patents, about the dates and authenticity of which there is no controversy, the trial judge will usually construe those documents as he would other documents; his doing so does not invade the province of the jury. There may be exceptional cases, but this is not one of them. The first questions therefore, for this court to determine, are whether, in view of the prior art patents, the one in suit is valid, and what is the scope of its claims. Besides the prior patents, there was an alleged prior use at the Chicago drainage canal, but as to what that was there was conflicting testimony therefore it must be assumed that complainant's account of it is correct, and we cannot consider it either as impairing the validity of the patent or as in any way affecting the construction of its claims.

On the question of infringement there seems to be no question as to what the structure was which defendant erected on the line of Panama Canal; as to the operation of that structure there is a conflict of testimony, and we must here assume the complainant's version of such operation to be correct.

The patent is for an improvement in cable cranes with gravity anchors. The following drawings will make the description more intelligible:

(Image Omitted)

The object of the invention, as stated in the specifications, is to facilitate the erection and operation of a suspension cable, and consists in--

'combining a tension weight upon the end of the cable with an inclined sheers or post adapted to transform the vertical tension of the weight into a horizontal tension upon the cable. * * * By inclining the sheer poles and weighting their upper ends the tension of the cable is converted into a thrust at the lower ends of the sheers; but I have termed the device a 'gravity anchor,' as it depends for its efficiency entirely upon the operation of gravity.'

In the drawings A is the cable, D the inclined sheer poles or post, H the load in the carrier which travels on the cable, and F the weight upon the end of the cable. The sheers are set at an angle of preferably 45 degrees to the cable.

'With the sheer posts set at this angle, the weight of the poles, if permitted to yield, exerts a very material tension upon the cable independently of the tension weight, and the latter may be proportioned to produce the additional tension required to strain the cable in the required degree. * * * It is well known that the tension at the ends of a suspending cable is much greater with a given load at the middle of the cable than when the load is close to either abutment, and my improved anchorage varies the angle of the cable in proportion to the load, if the sheer poles be so made as to support the load and also yield under variations of the tension.'

Referring to Fig. 7 the patentee says:

'Fig. 7 illustrates in diagrammatic form the changes of angle in the cable, the parts being indicated in solid lines with the load in the middle of the cable, and in dotted lines with the load close to the sheer poles. In the latter position the slack of the cable is partially taken up by the tension-weight and the sheer poles are bent outwardly from the fixed abutment, thus holding the cable at a smaller angle with its abutment than would be the case if the sheer poles were rigidly fixed and the slack of the cable were unchanged during the shifting of the load. I have found that with the use of the flexible sheer poles and the tension weight G, the angle of the cable to the horizontal line at the cap E is substantially the same for all positions of the load, as is indicated by the parallelism of the full lines and dotted lines adjacent to the cap E.'

The specification further states:

'The operation of the tension device in automatically taking up the slack of a suspended cable, when the load approaches the supports, enables me to move the load much closer to the supports, with the same degree of power, than has heretofore been possible. Where the cable supports are rigidly fixed, the inclination of the cable adjacent to the support is materially increased when the load approaches such support, and the power required to propel the carrier up such inclined portion toward the support is four or five times greater than is necessary to move the load over other portions of the cable.

'By the use of my automatic tension device the angle of the cable is kept nearly the same throughout the movement of the load toward the supports, and the angle adjacent to the support, when the lad is at such point, is no greater than when the load is in the middle of the cable. * * * By transporting the load close to the supports at both ends of the cable I am enabled to utilize the entire length of the cable with a moderate exertion of power, which has not heretofore been possible.'

The claims relied on are these:

'1. The combination, with a suspended cable, a carrier to support a load movably upon the cable and means for propelling the carrier thereon, of a stationary support or anchor at one end of the cable and a gravity anchor at the opposite end of the cable, consisting of an inclined sheers with the cable attached thereto, and a weight hung permanently from the sheers upon the opposite side to the cable, as and for the purpose set forth.'

'2. The combination, with a suspended cable, a carrier to support a load movably...