Carnes Artificial Limb Co. v. Dilworth Arm Co.

• Decision Date: 16 June 1921
• Docket Number: 1519.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: CARNES ARTIFICIAL LIMB CO. v. DILWORTH ARM CO.

273 F. 838

CARNES ARTIFICIAL LIMB CO. v. DILWORTH ARM CO.

No. 1519.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

June 16, 1921

Harrie E. Hart, of Hartford, Conn., and J. C. & H. M. Sturgeon, of Erie, Pa., for plaintiff.

Arthur L. Shipman, of Hartford, Conn., for defendant.

THOMAS District Judge.

This is a suit for an alleged infringement of claims 1 and 4 of patent No. 760,102, dated May 17, 1904, and of claim 1 of patent No. 999,484, dated August 1, 1911, both issued to William T. Carnes. Title to both patents is now vested in plaintiff company. The defenses are noninfringement as to both patents and anticipations voiding the first patent.

The inventions forming the subject-matter of the patents in suit are for what are known in the artificial limb trade as 'mechanical' arms, adapted for the use of individuals who have lost either or both arms, and where amputation has occurred either above or below the elbow joint. The term 'mechanical' arm is understood in the trade as meaning an arm provided with fingers which can be moved by some mechanical contrivance, together with mechanism for rotating the wrist, simulating, as nearly as possible, the action of the human wrist, hand, and fingers.

The invention disclosed in the first patent, as stated in the specification, relates to--

'artificial limbs, and has for its object the construction of an artificial hand provided with mechanism so constructed and combined that the fingers of the hand can be operated either with or without the assistance of the wearer's other hand, and with the joints of the wrist and fingers so made that they present no shoulders or corners visible through a glove worn on said hand, and also with a wrist joint so adjustable that it can be rotated on its axis and be secured at any desired point to which it may be rotated.'

This structure comprises a forearm section, a wrist section, which swivels or rotates on the forearm section, and a hand section, which is hinged to the wrist section.

The wrist section is supported on the forearm section through a plate, which is secured thereto and has a nipple, which extends through the plate on the forearm into a chamber in the end of the forearm, and is there secured in place. The nipple constitutes the swiveling support having a bearing in the plate. In order to hold the wrist section in any position to which it may be turned, a latch is provided in the wrist section, which has a projection engaging hole in the plate. This makes it possible to move the hand, which is carried by the wrist section, so that the palm is up or down or in intermediate positions, and to lock the hand in any of those positions.

The hand section is hinged to the wrist section, and its end approximates the shape of the human hand and wrist, and fits into the socket of the wrist section. It has notches which are engaged by a catch, so that the hand member may be adjusted on its hinge joint into any one of several positions, and there held by the engagement of the catch with one of the notches.

Fingers are hinged to the hand section, and each finger is connected by a link with a crank shaft, which is rotated by means of the pull of the cord attached through links, with the rack bar meshing with a pinion on the crank shaft. The rotation of the crank shaft causes the fingers to move alternatively to closed and open positions.

The cord is attached to a harness, which goes about the shoulders of the wearer, so that by the action of the shoulders tension is exerted on the cord. The cord, and the link to which it is attached extend through the hand member, wrist member, and forearm member. The thumb is mounted in the hand section on a pivotal support, and is held in a forward position by a spring.

The peculiar utilities of the mechanically moved fingers and the yielding thumb are explained by the inventor in his testimony as follows:

'The fingers, by being closed, allow one to hold an object in such a manner that it will not yield when the thumb is pressing against the object that is being held; it gives a yielding grip, that will hold and take up the lost motion that would take place by a positive mechanism. The thumb will spring back and allow the fingers to become closed, so that the object will be held. The spring tension of the thumb-if it wasn't there, if the thumb was made rigid, the wearer, in gripping a street car handle, if the cord that operates the mechanism should break in the operation of closing the hand, he would be locked fast, without the spring in the thumb to let it loose; with the spring in the thumb, the wearer could wrench his hand loose and get away without any danger.'

So that, in the first patent in suit, the swivel and hinge action of the wrist and hand member are accomplished by the use of the wearer's other hand; first tripping the catches and then moving the wrist or hand to the desired position, and permitting the catches to re-engage.

Plaintiff charges infringement of claims 1 and 4 of the first patent, which are as follows:

(1) 'The combination, in an artificial arm, of an artificial hand secured thereto, swivel and hinged joints intermediate of the elbow joint and the artificial hand, fingers hinged thereto, mechanism in said artificial hand adapted to open and close the fingers thereof, a thumb member pivoted to the hand body, and means for yieldingly holding said thumb member in a normally closed position in opposition to the fingers, substantially as and for the purpose set forth.'

(4) 'In an artificial arm and hand, the combination of a swivel joint in one part of the wrist portion, latch or stop mechanism adapted to secure said swivel joint in a position desired, a hinged socket joint in the wrist portion of said artificial hand below said swivel joint, latch or stop mechanism for retaining said hinged socket joint in a desired position, a hand body, mechanism therein for opening and closing the fingers of said hand, fingers pivoted to said hand body by means of hinged socket joints, and means for connecting the actuating mechanism of the fingers with the body of the wearer, whereby the same may be operated, substantially as and for the purpose set forth.'

We will first dispose of the prior art cited against the first patent. Seven patents were set forth in the answer, and three additional were admitted in evidence. It is unnecessary to discuss them in detail. All show one form or another of an artificial 'mechanical' arm. The earliest was dated in 1853, and the latest in 1867. This art, relied upon by defendant to anticipate plaintiff's invention, covers a period of 14 years, and ended 37 years prior to the date of plaintiff's first patent, and the latest of these patents expired 20 years before Carnes entered the field.

It appears from the evidence that Carnes, having lost his own arm in 1902 was prompted to and did carefully investigate the market for an artificial arm. In the course of that investigation, however, he made no examination of patents in the Patent Office, and he had never seen any one of the patented arms described in the prior patents in use, and had never heard of any of them being used. It is also in evidence that Dilworth, who lost a foot in 1908, was prompted by that unfortunate accident to carefully examine the market, and he, too, thoroughly investigated the artificial arm business. He explored the field, examined all devices available, looked over all the patents in the art, including all patents cited here, and testified that he never saw or knew of an arm made in accordance with any one of the prior patents, except one in Worcester, Mass., which was not in use.

From this, as well as from other testimony respecting the patents of the prior art, and an examination of the patents themselves, the conclusion is that the prior art patents were either inoperative or impractical for the purposes intended. Respecting such a finding the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Farmers' Mfg. Co. v. Spruks Mfg. Co., 127 F. 691, 62 C.C.A. 447, said:

'It cannot be said that a patent for a device, which fails to accomplish the desired end, is an anticipation of one which successfully accomplishes it.'

See Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Unhairing Mach. Co., 115 F. 498, 53 C.C.A. 230 (C.C.A. 2d Cir.).

Every feature of the Carnes arm has been carefully designed to make it a practical structure. Positive mechanism is provided for moving the fingers. No mechanism is provided for moving the thumb, but the thumb is held in a forward position by a spring. Consequently, as the fingers are closed upon the thumb, a tight grip on articles can be secured, because of the resilient mounting of the thumb.

Carnes provides for wear in the mechanical parts, and for lost motion in the hinged joints of the fingers, by providing the resiliently held thumb. This is a feature of practical importance. Another feature of extreme importance, so far as the yieldingly held thumb is concerned, as was explained by Carnes, supra, is the ability of the user, once having gripped an article, to immediately release himself from it by pressing against the thumb, which yields, so that a handle of a trolley car, for example, once gripped, can be released quickly by pressing against the thumb.

The value of the structures of the prior patents as anticipations is to be determined by the evidence in this case, which shows conclusively that every one of the patents relied upon by defendant is either inoperative, or impractical, or both, to meet the demands of the present day requirements. Obviously therefore, they are not anticipations of the claims of the first patent in suit, which recite complete organization of parts co-operating to produce a thoroughly practical mechanical...