Dederick v. Gardner

• Citation: 50 F. 96
• Parties: DEDERICK v. GARDNER et al.
• Decision Date: 19 April 1892
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

50 F. 96

DEDERICK v. GARDNER et al.

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

April 19, 1892

Church & Church, for complainant.

George H. Knight, for defendants.

COXE District Judge.

This is a suit for the infringement of three patents, Nos. 415,029 341,559, and 232,400, granted to the complainant November 12 1889, May 11, 1886, and September 21, 1880, respectively, for improvements in baling presses. The latter patent, No 232,400 was granted to complainant as assignee of Albert A Gehrt. The application for the first two patents was filed October 31, 1882. This application was divided and a new one filed December 18, 1885, on which No. 341,559 was granted. The invention of No. 415,029 relates to improvements in the manner of connecting the horse lever to the toggle in the power applying devices of 'continuous' baling presses. Letters patent No. 257,153 granted to complainant May 2, 1882, show mechanism by which the toggle is pushed from one side of the center line to the other, the back expansion of the hay operating to return the traverser and project the joint of the toggle alternatively out at opposite sides of the press as the horse lever is worked from side to side. This is known as a push-power device. The patent in hand describes a pull-power device. The substitution of a pull-power mechanism for the push-power of the older patent is the essential feature of the invention. Instead of pushing the toggle over the central line by direct contact with the head of the horse lever, it is pulled over by the horse lever through the intervention of a loose rope or chain connection.

After describing the various figures of the drawing and the operation of the machine the patentee says:

'These modifications in the form and location of the horse lever and cam may be multiplied indefinitely so long as the central idea is preserved of having the lever or the cam thereon connected to the toggle by a loose connection--such as a rope, chain, or the like-- so that the vibration of the horse lever will draw the toggle back and forth across the center, as stated.'

The claims involved are as follows:

'(2) In a baling press, the combination, with a double-acting toggle and a double-acting reversible horse lever, of a double-acting reversible connecting member secured at one end to said toggle and at the other end to the horse lever; whereby the said toggle and the said connecting member will be drawn bodily across the center alternately from opposite sides of the press when the horse lever is vibrated, substantially as and for the purpose set forth.'

'(4) In a baling press, the combination with the traverser, of the arms, E, the double-acting pitman extending beyond the point of connection with the arms, E, the double-acting horse lever, also extended beyond its pivot, and the loose connection-- such as a chain-- for connecting the extended end of said pitman and horse lever, substantially as described.'

'(7) In a baling press, the combination, with a double-acting toggle moving in a horizontal plane, of a reversible horse lever of sweep operating in a plane substantially parallel with the plane in which the toggle operates, and having a rounded or drum-shaped end, and a flexible connection attached at one end to the toggle and at the other end to the rounded or drum-shaped end of the horse lever or sweep, as set forth.'

The invention covered by the single claim of No. 341,559 was originally part of No. 415,029. As the granting of the latter patent was delayed by an interference commenced by the defendant George Ertel, the complainant filed a divisional application designed to cover an arrangement of the power mechanism, not involved in the interference proceedings. The distinguishing feature of the invention is that the horse lever is mounted upon a pivot separate from the pivot on which the arms of the toggle are mounted. Instead of having the horse lever and fulcrum arms on the same pivot, each has a pivot of its own. The claim sufficiently describes the invention. It is as follows:

'In a baling press, the combination, with a traverser and a double-acting toggle, of a horse lever mounted upon a pivot separate from the pivot of the outer arm of the toggle, and a loose connection between the horse lever and toggle, whereby upon the vibration of the horse lever the toggle will be pulled back and forth across the center, substantially as described.'

The defense to these patents is that they are void for lack of patentable novelty. Infringement is not seriously disputed.

The patent No. 261,323, granted to George Ertel, July 18, 1882, is chiefly relied upon by the defendants. The press described in this patent is upright, the traverser moving vertically instead of horizontally. A detailed description of this press is unnecessary. Suffice it to say that while the principle on which it operates is somewhat analogous to that of the complainant's structure, the mechanism is wholly unsuited to operate in a horizontal press. Instead of being a simple and durable machine, it is the reverse of this. If the power device described could be made to operate in a horizontal press at all it would be a most cumbersome structure, requiring, in place of the compact frame of complainant's press, which is 2 1/2 feet wide, the substitution of a frame between 12 and 15 feet wide. The difference between the two presses is the difference between partial and complete success. As the Ertel press of 1882 is the nearest approach to the combinations of the claims in question, it is not necessary to examine other references.

It is thought that complainant is entitled to the credit of having made the first operative pull-power machine for horizontal presses, and that the production of such a machine required the exercise of the inventive faculty. As was said by Mr. Justice BROWN in Electric Co. v. La Rue, 139 U.S. 601, 11 S.Ct. 670:

'While the invention does not seem to be one of great importance, we think the adaptation of this somewhat unfamiliar spring to this new use, and its consequent simplification of mechanism, justly entitles the patentee to the

...