Rubber Tire Wheel Co. v. Columbia Pneumatic Wagon Wheel Co.

• Decision Date: 27 December 1898
• Parties: RUBBER TIRE WHEEL CO. v. COLUMBIA PNEUMATIC WAGON WHEEL CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

91 F. 978

RUBBER TIRE WHEEL CO. v. COLUMBIA PNEUMATIC WAGON WHEEL CO.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

December 27, 1898

Paul A Staley, F. P. Fish, and Kerr, Page & Cooper, for complainant.

C. W Stapleton and Frederic H. Betts, for defendant.

THOMAS District Judge.

The complainant is the owner of letters patent of the United States, No. 554, 675, issued February 18, 1896, to A. W Grant, for a rubber-tired wheel. The tire manufactured pursuant to this patent, commonly known as the 'American' tire, in distinction from the 'English' tire, proved so acceptable that it came into general use, and practically excluded all other solid rubber-tired wheels from the American market. It is not necessary to describe at length its complete success. It is sufficient that it commands the trade in its peculiar field. The defendant desired to manufacture a solid rubber tire, and with that view carefully examined all styles of rubber tire and thereupon adopted, and has since been making and selling, the precise tire made by the complainant pursuant to its patent; or, if there is any deviation in form, it is so slight as to be observable only upon the nicest scrutiny. The defendant excuses this appropriation upon the ground that the complainant's combination had been so thoroughly anticipated by prior patents as to present in function or result no patentable invention. The complainant correctly states that its tire is composed of three principal parts: (1) A 'channel, or retaining seat of iron or steel, fitted into the wheel-rim; (2) a strip of solid rubber, seated in the channel; and (3) two independent retaining wires, passing entirely through this rubber, so as to encircle the wheel, the ends of the respective wires being united, so as to form two independent rings.'

These essential parts have each peculiarities of form, and relation one to the other. The under side of the rubber is covered with a strip of fibrous material, usually canvas, which (1) strengthens the base, and tends to reinforce the rubber under the action of the wires passing through it, when strains are brought upon such wires, and (2) tends to prevent wear on the bottom of the rubber. The sides or flanges of the channel incline outwardly, forming with its base a tapered or flaring groove or channel. The inner or unexposed sides of the rubber are fitted into and conformed in shape to the channel, to a point obviously inferior to the upper edges of the flanges, at which point the exposed sides, making an obtuse angle with the unexposed sides, incline inwardly and upwardly and away from the flanges, and gradually round and diminish into the tread of the tire, which is formed on the arc of a circle of much smaller diameter than the width of the rim. The result of the flaring flanges is that the rubber, in moving or springing laterally, is not pressed sharply against the edges of the flanges, and thereby injured, as would be the case if the flanges inclined inwardly. The two wires pass through the rubber longitudinally, in openings which are below the edges of the flanges, and on a line with the vertices of the angles made by the unexposed and exposed sides of the tire; and the ends of each wire are fastened together, after having been drawn sufficiently tight to hold the rubber within the channel, but not so rigidly as to prevent the rubber moving slightly in its seat, and thereby to a degree yielding to any force opposing the progress of the wheel. This latitude of movement, together with the elasticity of the rubber, permits the tire to accommodate itself to the obstacles with which it comes in contact when the wheel is in motion. This lateral movement allowed to the rubber, whether arising from its permissible turning on the wires, or from its own elasticity, or both, and the adaptations which, notwithstanding such movement, tend to preserve the tire from abrasion by the rim, are essential features of the tire.

(Image Omitted)

Is this combination novel? Does it produce a result not previously known in the art? Mr. Stapleton, the defendant's president, testified: 'I don't mean to say that I find the exact form shown in the Grant patent in any one prior patent, but I find all the features and advantages claimed to be obtained in the Grant construction in more than one prior patent, and the slight changes of construction in the Grant patent from the prior patents are exactly shown and described in other prior patents.'

Mr. Benjamin, the expert for the defendant, states:

'All the elements of both claims of the patent in suit are disclosed in the patents and publications adduced in the prior art, operating in like manner to produce a like result. * * * No one structure in the prior art as here shown is a fac simile in every detail of the structure of the patent in suit.'

It is understood from these statements that the defendant claims that all the features and functions specified or existing in the Grant patent are not disclosed in any one patent, but that every feature and function disclosed in the Grant patent is to be found in prior structures and patents. Upon the argument the complainant's counsel was understood to state to the court that the complainant's patent must be sustained, if at all, as a patentable combination of parts. Hence it may be considered in what tires the chief parts forming the present combination existed previously, in conjunction with what other elements, and for the performance of what offices.

First, as to the tapered channel with flaring flanges. Willoughby patent (British), 5,924, also No. 18,030, of 1892 (Fig. 30); Myers patent, No. 468,971, of 1892 (Fig. 3); Rodgers patent, No. 539,826, of 1895 (Fig. 1); Elliott patent, No. 440,702, of 1890 (Fig. 3); Owen patent (United States), 365,091, of 1887,-- all show channels with flanges more or less flaring, or inclined inwardly from the base of the channel or rim. Certainly it is not new to set solid rubber within such channels, with flaring flanges. In the Willoughby patent, No. 18,030, several figures show a channel with flaring flanges, secured to the felly, into which is fitted a rubber rising somewhat above the flanges, 'having annular recesses or projections therein, ' on which is superimposed 'a metallic tyre in sections, having recesses or projections corresponding to or engaging with those in the rubber bed. ' See, also, Willoughby patent, No. 5,924, Meyers, Elliott, and Rodgers patents, which show rubber set into a channel with flaring flanges. This is true also of the Walker (British) patent of 1877. Therefore, without noticing for the moment some substantial differences between these rubbers and those of the complainant, it may be concluded that applying rubbers to channels with flaring flanges was anticipated by the patents mentioned, as appears from the figures accompanying such patents.

The purpose of inventors respecting rubber set in rims with flaring flanges may be ascertained by reference to the specifications in several patents. In the Owen letters patent, No. 365,091, of June 21, 1887, for tire for velocipede, attention is called to the inclination of the tire to expand laterally under pressure, 'so that it projects beyond the edges of the rim, and is sheared or cut off thereby,' and the patentee states:

'To avoid this difficulty, I reduce the width of the tire outside of the rim or felly, making its sides either of a flat or concave form, or of other form falling within the semicircle, so that, when subjected to pressure, the lateral expansion or enlargement will not cause the tire to project beyond the rim. This construction is plainly shown in Figures 5, 6, and 7.'

An examination of such figures does show a channel, with flaring flanges, and within it a 'tough refractory' rubber, which is not fitted to, and does not rest directly upon, the base of the channel, but does rest on a supporting inner layer of soft elastic rubber, but the unexposed sides do partially rest upon the flaring flanges. The sides of the exposed part of the tire make an angle with the unexposed sides of the rubber, the angle as shown in Figs. 6 and 7 being slightly below the upper edge of the flange. Figs. 6 and 7 show the rubber in its exposed part in form similar, but not identical, especially in the shape of the tread, with the form of complainant's tire in its exposed part, such exposed sides being flat in Fig. 6, and concave in Fig. 7. Other figures accompanying the letters to Owen show the exposed portion of the rubber in concave and convex forms, fitted in connection with an underlying rubber in channels with flanges, which in some instances incline inwardly, and in other cases incline outwardly. This tire is similar to complainant's tire in these respects: Flaring flanges are shown in Figs. 5, 6, and 7; the unexposed sides in part rest against such flaring flange; the exposed sides make an angle with the unexposed sides at a point slightly below the upper edge of the flanges; the sides of the exposed portion are flat in Fig. 6; the tread is formed on the arc of a circle of smaller diameter than the width of the rim.

Letters patent (United States) No. 424,452, of April 1, 1890, issued to Biersmith, show (Fig. 1) a channel with corrugated flanges with flaring edges, although the unexposed sides of the rubber are concave. Respecting this figure it is stated in the specification:

'By reference to Fig. 1, it will be seen that the act of corrugating the rim circumferentially tends to flare the upper or outer edges, E, of the sides, C, to cause the same to extend slightly from the rubber tire, thereby preventing an abrasion of the same, and allowing the tire to cushion upon the smooth flare of the rim when compressed by contact with the ground or pavement.'

In...