Cary v. Lovell Mfg. Co.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. Western District of Pennsylvania
Citation31 F. 344
PartiesCARY and others v. LOVELL MANUF'G CO., Limited.
Decision Date24 June 1887

Causten Brown, Wm. C. Witter, and Wm. H. Kenyon, for complainants.

Wm Bakewell and John K. Hallock, for respondents.

Coram McKennan and Acheson, JJ.

ACHESON J.

This suit is for the infringement of letters patent No. 116,266 dated June 27, 1871, granted to Alanson Cary, for an 'improvement in furniture springs.' The invention relates to spiral springs, extensively used in upholstering sofas and chairs, and for bed-bottoms, etc., which are usually made in a conical form, of hard-drawn steel wire coiled and forced to the proper shape. The specification states that, the metal being greatly condensed and hardened in the process of drawing the wire, a good degree of elasticity is thereby given to the wire; but that in bending or coiling the wire into the proper shape the metal is unavoidably weakened,-- the outer portion of the wire coil being drawn or stretched, while the inner portion is crushed or shortened; and that thereby the elasticity, strength, and durability of the spring are much reduced. The invention consists in a process for restoring to the wire of the spring the strength and elasticity which it lost by this distortion and this is effected by subjecting the spring, after it has been completed in the usual manner, for the space of about eight minutes, 'to a degree of heat known as 'spring-temper heat,' which is about 600 deg., more or less,' whereby a complete homogeneity of the metal is produced, and greatly increased strength, elasticity, and durability are imparted to the spring. The claim of the patent is for 'the method of tempering furniture or other coiled springs, substantially as hereinbefore described.'

The process of the patent, as will be perceived on an inspection of the specification, is based on the fact that the evils resulting from the distortion of hard-drawn steel wire, in the ordinary operation of coiling it into springs for furniture, can be removed by a single application of heat, as set forth, so as to result in a greatly improved spring. Of the great utility and value of the patented process there can be no question, under the proofs. Undoubtedly it secures the beneficial results specified in the patent; and hence furniture springs so treated, upon their introduction into the market, came into immediate and very general use, largely superseding springs not subjected to the treatment.

In this connection, another significant fact, well established by the proofs, deserves mention. Experts and others practically familiar with the treatment and behavior of steel were greatly surprised at the result effected by the patented process, it being contrary to all their previous conceptions and experience.

This patent was passed on, and its validity sustained, on final hearing, and after full consideration, by the circuit court for the Southern district of New York, in the case of Cary v. Wolff, 24 F. 139. In the course of his opinion, Judge WHEELER there says:

'The process of the patent does not merely add temper as a quality to steel which did not have it before. It restores the lost strength and elasticity of the wire consequent to the displacement of the particles of which it is composed by the process of making it into springs. The discovery was that the application of heat would effect that restoration, which is a different thing from tempering. Subjection to heat for casting and tempering, and to produce malleability, and for various other purposes, was well enough known; but it was not known for this purpose until it was applied to this kind of springs in their peculiarly weakened state. The discovery was of a new application of an old process, which produces a new and highly useful result.'

Judge WHEELER, therefore, held that the Cary process was new and patentable, notwithstanding previously, in the manufacture of wire-bells for clocks, heat had been applied to them for the purpose of giving them the desired sound and tone, and hair balance springs for marine clocks were subjected to heat while coiled in the grooves of a metallic plate, for the purpose of permanently setting the coils in proper relations to each other.

The adjudication in the Second circuit is entitled to great weight, and, as to questions directly passed on, ought to be followed by a court of coordinate jurisdiction, unless a mistake of law or fact is manifest, or new evidence...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Donner v. Walgreen Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • November 8, 1930
    ...descriptions of the inventions as will, without anything more, enable one skilled in the art to practice the invention. Cary et al. v. Lovell Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 31 F. 344; Badische Anilin & Soda Fabrik v. Kalle (C. C.) 94 F. 163; Permutit Co. v. Harvey Lumber Co. (C. C. A. 2) 279 F. Donner ta......
  • Truman v. Carvill Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • March 28, 1898
    ... ... Consolidated Safety-Valve Co. v. Ashton Valve Co., ... 26 F. 319; Lockwood v. Faber, 27 F. 63; Machine ... Co. v. Hedden, 29 F. 147; Cary v. Manufacturing ... Co., 31 F. 344; Miller v. Tobacco Co., 7 Fed ... 91; Norton v. Wheaton, 57 F. 929; Southern Pac ... Co. v. Earl, 27 C.C.A ... ...
  • Enterprise Mfg. Co. v. Deisler
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • June 2, 1891
    ...30 F. 625; Mayo v. The Chelmsford, 34 F. 399; Hammerschlag v. Garrett, 9 Fed.Rep. 43; Zinsser v. Krueger, 45 F. 574; Cary v. Manufacturing Co., 31 F. 344. The of validity, therefore, is open only so far as respects the additional evidence introduced; and this does not require extended discu......
  • Carey v. Miller
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • March 6, 1888
    ...eight minutes. The patent has been several times before the courts, (Cary v. Wolff, 24 F. 139, 141; Cary v. Spring-Bed Co., 27 F. 299, 31 F. 344,) and has been sustained to extent of covering such process, 'when the springs are kept below red heat. ' It may be that the patent is sufficientl......

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