American Fur Refining Co. v. Cimiotti Unhairing Mach Co.

• Decision Date: 03 July 1903
• Docket Number: 39
• Citation: 123 F. 869
• Parties: 59 C.C.A. 357 v. CIMIOTTI UNHAIRING MACH. CO. et al. AMERICAN FUR REFINING CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

123 F. 869

59 C.C.A. 357

AMERICAN FUR REFINING CO. et al. v. CIMIOTTI UNHAIRING MACH. CO. et al.

No. 39

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

July 3, 1903

Henry Schreiter, for appellants.

Louis C. Raegener, for appellees.

Before ACHESON and DALLAS, Circuit Judges, and BUFFINGTON, District judge.

BUFFINGTON District Judge.

This is an appeal from a decree entered in the United States Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey against the American Fur Refining Company, appellant, alleging infringement of the eighth claim of patent No. 383,258, granted May 22, 1888, to John W. Sutton, for a machine for plucking furs. The validity of the patent was sustained in Cimiotti Unhairing Company et al. v. Bowsky (C.C.) 95 F. 474, a case heard in the Second Circuit, and is not here questioned, the sole issue being alleged infringement. The invention relates to 'an improved machine for plucking seal skins and other furs so as to remove the stiff water hairs therefrom without injuring the soft hair or wool of the same. ' Scattered among the fur on the pelt of such animals are found stiff, resilient hairs, termed 'water hairs,' which it is necessary to pluck or cut off. This, before 1881, was done by hand. Over the index finger, which it will be noted corresponds to the stretcher bar of the latter art, the operator stretched a section of the pelt. By the mouth the fur was then blown down and retained in place by the thumb and finger, a depressing and repressing effect, which corresponds to the separating and holding devices shown later. The toughness and resiliency of the water hairs caused them to stand upright. They were then cut or plucked by shears or tweezers. Hand-plucking was a laborious and expensive process, a girl taking a week to unhair a single seal pelt. The first advance in machine unhairing of such skins was made by Gustav and Ferdinand Cimiotti, who subsequently incorporated their interests in the appellee company. Briefly stated, their device, as shown in their patent of 1881 consisted of a knife-edged stretcher bar, a bellows which parted the fur and water hair, depressing the former and suffering the latter to stand out at the stretcher bar edge a mechanism which simultaneously moved up guard combs to hold down the fur, and shears, brought to and operating at the stretcher bar edge, to cut the standing water hairs. By this machine an operator was enabled to unhair eight seal pelts in a day. It was highly successful, and as a seal unhairing device has never been supplanted. In 1883 another air-blast plucking machine was invented by one Rasmus. Its value was such that it was purchased by the Cimiottis, who, in 1884 licensed the firm of Bates & Co., of Boston, thereunder, and have collected royalty to the extent of several thousand dollars per year. These two machines practically monopolized since that time, the unhairing of seal skins in the United States. In 1888 Sutton sought by the patent in suit to improve on air-blast machines. His device, as stated in his patent, was 'more especially designed with a view to overcome some of the defects and insufficiencies of the plucking machines heretofore in use. ' These defects related to a particular part of the operation, as he desired to 'produce the plucking of the skins at the lower part of the neck and shoulders, where the hairs pointed outwardly and backwardly, and are the most difficult to pluck, as they lie close to the skin when the same is drawn over the stretcher bar,' and 'to dispense with a blast fan or other air forcing devices, and produce the removing of the water hairs entirely by mechanical means which are operated by power, so that a quick and uniform plucking of the skin takes place. ' It will be particularly noted that the expressed special purpose of his invention was to clip the outwardly pointing hairs at the lower side of the neck. Sutton's invention is best stated in his own words:

'The invention consists of a machine for plucking seal and other skins, which comprises a fixed stretcher bar, means for stretching and intermittently moved up in front of the stretcher bar, a rotary cutting knife and a vertically reciprocating cutting knife working in conjunction with the rotary knife for cutting off the stiff projecting hairs, said rotary cutting knife being provided with a card supported back of the knife; all of which parts are operated from a common driving shaft, so as to produce for each rotation of the same the cutting off or plucking of the hairs projecting from that part of the skin in front of the stretcher bar. * * * The invention consists, of the mechanisms by which the motion is imparted from the driving shaft to the different parts comprising the machine, as will appear more fully hereinafter, and finally be pointed out in the claims.'

The eighth claim of the patent, which is here in issue, is as follows:

'The combination of a fixed stretcher bar, means for intermittently feeding the skin over the same, a stationary card above the stretcher bar, a rotary separating brush below the same, and mechanism substantially as described, whereby the rotary brush is moved upward and forward into a position in front of the stretcher bar, substantially as set forth.'

It will be noted that other claims of the patent were for combination or working machine embodying all the effective elements, and that the eighth claim embodies only certain particular features. Analysis of the claim shows that every element is specifically described in the patent specification, and the functional purpose thereof distinctly stated. We have first a fixed stretcher bar. This fixed stretcher bar is the center toward which all the movable operative elements of the machine converge. The specification says:

'On the frame, A, is supported a fixed, transverse stretcher bar, B, which is tapered to a narrow edge, over which the skin to be plucked is stretched. The skin is applied by tapes to the rollers, B', B', which are intermittently actuated by gear wheels operated by a pawl and rachet wheel mechanism from the driving shaft, S, as customary in plucking machines of this class. By the gear wheels and pawl and rachet mechanism the skin is fed intermittently for a small portion of its length over the front edge of the stretcher bar, it being unwound from the upper and wound up on the lower feed roller.'

It thus appears not only that the stretcher bar was fixed, and therefore incapable of effecting the forward movement of the pelt, but that such forward pelt movement was effected direct from the driving shaft by means independent of the stretcher bar.

The next element of the claim is a stationary card above the stretcher bar. The function and use of this stationary card are shown in the specification:

'Immediately above the stretcher bar, B, is arranged a stationary card, E, which is attached to the ends of the stretcher bar, B, by means of thumb screws. (Not shown in the drawings.) The points of the teeth of the card, E, are close to, put do not touch, the surface of the skin, so that the hair and skin are both straightened as the skin is fed forward. The teeth of the card, E, hold down the fine fur,

...