Deering v. McCormick Harvesting Mach Co.
| Decision Date | 30 November 1889 |
| Citation | 40 F. 236 |
| Parties | DEERING v. McCORMICK HARVESTING MACH. CO. SAME v. WINONA HARVESTER WORKS et al., (two cases.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Banning & Banning and B. F. Thurston, for complainant.
Parkinson & Parkinson, for McCormick Manufacturing Company.
Dyrenforth & Dyrenforth, for the Winona Harvester Works and others.
Three suits are brought by William Deering-- two against the Winona Harvester Works and others, which are consolidated, and the other one against the McCormick Harvesting Machine Company-- for the infringement of certain letters patent for improvement in harvesters, or harvester binders. They are heard together. In controversy, there are involved with the McCormick Company letters patent No. 191,264, issued May 29 1887, to John F. Steward; No. 223,812, issued January 27 1880, to William F. Olin; No. 266,913, issued October 31 1882; also No. 272,598, issued February 20, 1883, to John F. Steward. The same patents are involved in the suit against the Winona Company, and, in addition, letters patent No. 278,639, issued May 29, 1883, and letters patent No. 301,190, issued July 1, 1884, also letters patent No. 251,147, issued December 20, 1881, to John W. Webster. The first two patents involved in the Winona Company's suit, and not in the McCormick case, relate to the 'knotter' by which the cord is held around the bundle of grain; and counsel consent that a decree may be entered against that company for an infringement of these patents, so that they are eliminated from this controversy. The complainant and the McCormick Company are extensive manufacturers and competitors throughout the grain-producing regions of the world, and by their efforts have stimulated the inventive genius of that class of persons interested in the improvement and development of practical machinery for cutting and binding grain. The Winona Company was a new enterprise, inaugurated under the superintendence and management of men formerly in the employ of the complainant, and manufactured a machine in its general features and operation like those introduced and sold by the complainant, and also by the McCormick Company.
Steward Patent, No. 191,264, dated May 29, 1877.-- Defenses: No infringement, and want of novelty and patentability, and estoppel. It is remarkable that no machines are in use, at the present time, manufactured precisely according to the specifications, claims, and design of this patent; and, although the complainant is the owner, he does not construct the machine sold by him like the drawing of the patent. The charge is made that both defendants infringe the fifth claim of this patent. This claim is as follows:
'The combination of the toothed arms, p. slotted, receiving platforms, H, and the fixed spring arms, u, v, for compacting the gavels substantially as specified.'
It is necessary to a proper understanding of this claim, and the devices involved, to look at the mechanism of the machine described, and for which the patent was granted, and its purposes, in the light of the existing state of the art. This patent is denominated 'Improvement in Grain-Binders.' The patentee, in his description, says:
The claim, in connection with the drawings and model exhibited, calls for a slotted receiving platform, toothed arms arranged to pass through it and protrude, so as to engage and force forward the flowing grain, and spring arms fixed directly opposite the slots in the platform, operating as resistants to the arms moving forward through the slots, and thus the packers or arms, with the springs directly opposite, acting as resistants, compact the gavel while it is being formed, and finally press it through and under the springs, to be operated upon the needle arm, and bound. When Steward applied for this patent he was familiar with the operation of a binder, then in the market, on the Gordon or McElroy machine, and alleges that the combination of this fifth claim in the patent was the result of his personal experience in the field, and that the necessity of such improvement was then demonstrated. In order to make a machine effective as a binder, the wisps of grain must be formed into a gavel of proper size to make the bundle. This could only be accomplished by some device which would press the wisps of grain together, and finally hold them, until the binding mechanism tied the bundle. In 1868, Carpenter received letters patent for 'improvement in grain-binders,' and his invention related to improvements for conveying the grain from the platform to the binding mechanism, and there compressing it into a bundle by means of compressor rods and the revolving rake. The compressor rods and the teeth of the revolving rake perform, to some extent, the same duties as the teeth, p, and the spring rods in the Steward patent. The rods are pivoted at one end only, and they operate as resistants in an opposite direction to the teeth on the revolving rake. They are held down by a spring pawl, which tends to make them rigid, so as to hold the bundle being formed by the wisps brought up by the rake teeth. The rods spring back when released by the pawl at the proper time, and the bundle is carried over the shaft which carries the binder arm.
So the Storle patent, 1869, has spring rods under which, on the platform, the wisps are raked, and these spring rods tend in a slight degree to compact the gavel as it forms, and keep the grain down. In the Whitney machine, 1875, overhanging curved rods, called 'E,' drop down, and, as the wisps are brought along by the rake teeth, the rods operate as resistants to compact the gavel. The Gorham machine was patented about this time, and the Gordon one year earlier,-- called 'Gordon-McElroy' by counsel. The latter had overhanging spring wires fastened to a rock shaft, and their function was to compress the gavel and hold it until a bundle was ready to be bound. As in the Storle and the Whitney, the bundle was formed by the revolving rake teeth, called 'arms' or 'packers,' and the rods acting upon the grain on the platform. In the Gordon machine the spring rods were not placed directly opposite the advancing arms and there was a difficulty in the practical operation of the machine in the field; and, as I understand the witness, this difficulty was due to the form of the overhanging rods, and the fact that they were not independent resistants. Steward then, in his patent, provided a device for compacting the grain for binding. He changed the shape of the Gordon spring rods, and fastened them to a cross-bar, not a rock shaft, so each would hang directly opposite to a slot in the platform, through which a tooth upon the revolving rake, or, as described in the patent tooth of the sliding bar, operated. These rods had independent springs, and operated as resistants independent of each other. He made a receiving platform, H, tilted by a crank shaft, and its function is particularly described in the specifications of the patent. It is described as slotted, and the purposes for which this platform is introduced could not be accomplished unless it was slotted, and was capable of being tilted; so then, whenever the receiving platform, H, is spoken of, it must be understood that reference is made to a receiving platform, described in the patent as slotted, and firmly attached to a shaft or journal bar, connected with a crank and other devices, so that the platform, H, shall be tilting, and can be raised and returned to its proper position, as appears in the drawings accompanying the patent. The specification requires the receiving platform, H, to be constructed in this manner; and when the patentee introduces in a combination claim the platform, H, whether it be designated as a slotted platform, or a tilted platform, reference is made to the platform particularly described in the patent as an element of the combination. My construction of the fifth claim, therefore, is that it is limited to a combination of the toothed arms, receiving platform, slotted and tilting, and the fixed springs, each having the characteristics designated in the patent, and co-operating for compacting the gavels in the peculiar manner described in the patent; and the claim is not infringed, except by the combination of the same elements possessing the essential characteristics of those designated in the claim, and co-operating in the same way, for the same purpose. The defendants use no such combination. They have a compressor in alignment with the packers, and below them, near the tail of the receiving platform, and working as a resistant to compact and press the gavel. The grain in their machine passes from the elevator over and onto a receiving platform, with one wide slot, through which the packers or teeth move forward the wisps against and under two wires or rods overhanging, and coming down to that part of the platform, which drops and permits the bundle, when tied, to fall to the ground. The receiving platform is not tilting, but stationary. The rods do not hang down, and operate as compactors and resistants, opposite the slot through which the teeth advance in alignment with them, but are located at each side of it, and continue to bear upon the gavel, and prevent the straws of grain from slipping down, while the...
To continue reading
Request your trial