Gates Iron Works v. Fraser

• Decision Date: 05 April 1890
• Citation: 42 F. 49
• Parties: GATES IRON-WORKS v. FRASER et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

42 F. 49

GATES IRON-WORKS v. FRASER et al.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. Illinois.

April 5, 1890

Coburn & Thacher, for complainant.

West &amp Bond, for defendants.

Suit was brought for alleged infringement of eight patents, and proofs made as to seven, to-wit; Nos. 56,793, to H. Pierce 201,646, to C. M. Brown; 243,343, 243,545, 246,608, 250,656 to P. W. Gates, known in the record as Gates' patents Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively, all of which were for improvements in stone or ore-crushers; Nos. 110,397, to J. H Rusk, and 237,320, to G. & A. Raymond, for improvements in break-pins for grinding-mills.

GRESHAM J.

The single claim of the Pierce patent reads: 'The construction of a conically shaped crushing-mill, with an eccentric motor as herein described, for the purposes and in the manner substantially set forth. ' The claim is not broadly for the construction of a conically shaped crushing-mill with an eccentric motion. The very language of the claim limits it to a mill constructed in the manner substantially as set forth, and the claim, thus construed, describes a mill, or machine, radically different from the defendants' machine. The latter does not have the rocking wedge section of the Pierce machine, without which it would not operate, to say nothing of other differences.

Claims 2, 3, and 4 of the Brown patent are involved in this suit. The fourth claim is limited to a shell, inclosing at its upper end a concave breaker, and provided with an oblique trough, 'integral with the frame, the inner edge of which extends upward and within the concave base of the breaker, C, all around. ' This claim was allowed, on the ground that this feature of the combination was an improvement on anything in the prior art. One element in the combination covered by the second claim is 'the breaking-head, C, constructed with a concave base, as shown. ' Both the drawing and the specification show a concave breaking-head into which the shell or trough, n, extends. The trough or shell, n, is cast integral with the case shell. These claims cannot be broadened by eliminating or disregarding any of their language. The breaking-head of the defendants' machine is not concave, and it follows that this machine has no trough extending upward, and within the concave breaking-head. The defendants' machine, therefore, infringes neither the second nor the fourth claim of the Brown patent. The defendants' machine does not contain the spindles with the sliding bearing mentioned in Brown's third claim, or any other sliding bearings, and the adjusting screw or step embraced in the third claim is not found in the defendants' machine.

Gates' patent No. 1 relates to an improvement in the upper ball and socket bearing of the machine. The interior bearing surfaces are not required to be chilled by the Brown patent, while the Gates patent No. 1 is for chilled interior bearing surfaces. This change involved no invention. Gates did nothing more than take the bearings of the Brown patent, and chill them. The testimony in the record shows that Brown and Scoville chilled segmental bearings in 1877, which was prior to the application filed by Gates for his patent. The chilling of wearing surfaces to avoid friction was well known in the art long before the date of the Gates patent....