Carnegie Steel Co. v. Brislin

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
• Citation: Carnegie Steel Co. v. Brislin, 124 F. 213 (3rd Cir. 1903)
• Decision Date: 06 August 1903
• Docket Number: 18.
• Parties: CARNEGIE STEEL CO., Limited, v. BRISLIN et al.

124 F. 213

CARNEGIE STEEL CO., Limited, v. BRISLIN et al.

No. 18.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

August 6, 1903

John R Bennett, for appellant.

J. N Cooke and James I. Kay, for appellees.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

In Equity. For opinion below, see 118 F. 579.

Before ACHESON, DALLAS, and GRAY, Circuit Judges.

GRAY Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from the decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania, which sustains the patentability of the combination covered by the first claim of the United States letters patent No. 345,953 issued to Brislin and Vinnac, July 20, 1886, for 'feeding mechanism for rolling mills,' and finds the defendant below, the appellant here, to have infringed the same. As to the two other claims of the patent in suit, the bill was dismissed, on the ground of noninfringement of the second and that the third was not involved in the litigation. The bill likewise was dismissed as to a charge of infringement of the claims of letters patent No. 352,748, issued to Hanley and Richey, November 16, 1886, for 'feed table for rolling mills.' We are only concerned, therefore, with the consideration of the first claim of the Brislin and Vinnac patent.

The invention claimed in the patent relates to the art of the mechanical rolling of iron and steel, the process of which is thus described in the specifications:

'In the process of rolling iron it is necessary to elevate the iron so that it will pass through between the upper and middle rolls when a 'three-high' mill is used, and in case of a 'two-high' mill it is necessary to pass the iron over the top of the upper roll in the process of rolling; and in moving the iron from one groove to the other, and from one set of rolls to another set, it is necessary to move the iron bodily otherwise. In heavy rolling the labor attendant upon elevating the heated iron and moving it laterally for the several passes required in the process of rolling is very laborious, and the difficulty attendant upon said manipulation causes a loss of time, and at the same time a loss of heat, thereby causing the iron to be more difficult to roll, and the stiffening of the iron by the cooling process due to said loss of time often results in the breaking of the mechanism connected therewith. Mechanical contrivances have been constructed and used for the purpose of the vertical lift of the heated iron in the operation of rolling it. Our invention has for its movement of it in the process of rolling; and our invention consists in a lifting mechanism and laterally moving mechanism combined with rolls of a rolling mill for the vertical lifting and lateral movements of the heated iron in the operation of rolling it.'

The first claim of the patent (which alone is in contention here) is as follows:

'(1) The combination, in a rolling mill, of rolls, a carriage, a roller frame therefor for feeding to the rolls and pivoted at its outer end, means for laterally shifting said carriage and roller frame, and devices for inclining said roller frame on its pivot, so as to vary the feed of the latter to the rolls, substantially as set forth.'

It will thus be seen that the invention claimed in the patent in suit is, speaking generally, for such a combination of elements as would mechanically present to the rolls of a rolling mill, or receive therefrom, the iron or steel to be rolled, on tables furnished with feeding rolls, pivoted at their outer ends, and capable of being mechanically raised in a vertical direction at their inner ends, so as to present the metal which had gone through one pass of rolls for further reduction through an upper or higher pass, and of laterally moving said tables from one set of rolls to another, or from one groove to another of the same rolls. This is claimed, in the arguments and contentions of the appellees, to be what is called 'complete mechanical rolling,' and to have been first accomplished by the invention described in the first claim has been sustained by the learned judge of the court below, and upon it rests the decree declaring infringement.

The history of the prior art, so far as the case before us is concerned, and as shown in the record, may be briefly stated. It is undoubtedly true that, in the prior art, hand feeding to the rolls was at one time universal, and that various devices for lifting billets and bars, by hooks attached to pulleys for heavy work, were in use before mechanical rolling was practiced. We do not, however, find that the invention of the patent in suit made the first advance from manual rolling to complete mechanical rolling. It no doubt made an advance in mechanical rolling, which is quite a different thing from an advance to mechanical rolling.

The French patent to Sauvage, No. 32,389, of May 27, 1858, sets forth a single stand of three-high rolls, on each side of which, the specifications state,

'A lifting table is disposed to receive the piece coming from the heating furnace, which the heater or his helper places upon the aforesaid table on the side nearer to the train. The head roller then takes it and pushes it between the cylinders. The catcher placed behind the train on the opposite side from the head roller, takes the piece when it comes from the rolls, draws it upon the lifting table, causes the latter to move upward, and in same time engages the piece into the rolls; the head roller on this side performs the same operation until the piece is completed.'

As appears by the drawings and specifications, the 'Sauvage' lifting table is pivoted at its outer end and is vertically movable at its inner end, so as to permit of its inner end being raised and lowered, in order that it may deliver the metal to and from all the rolls of a three-high stand. Of this apparatus, the defendant's expert, Laureau, says:

'I have read the French patent you refer to and I believe I understand it. It relates to a certain arrangement of rolling mills which permits to roll plates at one heat. The train is a three-high train, and the rolls of which can be moved vertically so as to vary the distance between them. In order to facilitate the handling of the plates, lifting tables are placed at the front and back of the rolls. These tables are pivoted at their outer end and are capable of vertical motion at their inner end. This vertical motion is communicated to them by steam cylinders placed directly above the inner ends and connected to them by means of a yoke. The operation is very simple and easily understood. The piece being placed on the front table passes through rolls, it is caught at the back by the back table, which, by means of the cylinder placed above it, raises the piece to the level of the upper rolls. The piece then passes back to the front, is caught by the front table which has been raised and lowered again to the lower rolls, etc. It will, therefore, be seen that the feed table apparatus consists essentially of a frame having loose rollers upon it and pivoted at its outer ends, the inner end being raised up and down by a cylinder placed directly above it. As compared with the Brislin and Vinnac patent, this apparatus shows a feed table pivoted at its outer end and capable of a vertical motion at its inner end.'

So that, the device of the 'Sauvage' patent, so far as a single stand of high rolls is concerned, presents all the advantages of complete mechanical rolling. This is not controverted in the opinion of the learned judge of the court below. The 'Sauvage' apparatus only lacks means for laterally shifting the table, consisting of the frame with the loose rollers, pivoted at its outer end and capable of being lifted at its inner end, so that it might serve two or more stands of rolls placed side by side. We will not pause here to consider whether the thought or idea of laterally moving this device for the purpose stated, was one worthy of being called a patentable invention, apart from the specific mechanical means devised for such lateral movement. We will only remark, in passing, that the suggestion of the moving of such a table on a carriage or truck, laterally, so as to bring the same successively in front of stands of rolls placed side by side, does not seem to us to so involve patentable invention as to be entitled to the monopoly accorded to such invention by the patent law. The mounting of such a table upon the truck moved upon the rails in front of the rollers, would violate such a monopoly were it granted. The traveling crane comes within its functional principle. The particular mechanical means or device by which such lateral movement is made, of course may be of such a character as to deserve the protection of a patent. We are not surprised, therefore, to find that in the 'Alleyne' (British) patent of April 4, 1861, is described a rolling mill of several stands of 'two-high' rolls, and that the object of one part of the invention of the patent is thus described 'A second part of my invention has for its object the obviating of the difficulty attendant on transferring large masses of iron at a very high temperature from one groove in the rolls of a rolling mill to the next groove, or from one set of rolls to another, as is the case in rolling plates which may also be without grooves. For this purpose I construct a tramway on either side of the rolling mill just in the front of and behind the rolls, running parallel with the same, and either sunk in the floor of the mill or level with the same, or at the same inclination as the floor of the mill. Upon these tramways I place travelers capable of running along on both sides of the rolls in a direction parallel with the same, and...