Elliott Mach. Co. v. P.B. Appeldoorn's Sons Co.
| Decision Date | 08 June 1920 |
| Docket Number | 3367. |
| Citation | 267 F. 983 |
| Parties | ELLIOTT MACH. CO. v. P. B. APPELDOORN'S SONS CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
On Petition for Rehearing, November 5, 1920.
Fred L Chappell, of Kalamazoo, Mich. (Edgar H. Johnson, of Grand Rapids, Mich., on the brief), for appellant.
Chas W. Owen, of Toledo, Ohio (Owen, Owen & Crampton, of Toledo Ohio, on the brief), for appellee.
Before DONAHUE, Circuit Judge, and COCHRAN and WESTENHAVER, District judges.
This is a suit for infringement of United States letters patent No 799,549, issued to William E. Elliott, September 12, 1905. The defenses are invalidity and noninfringement. The court below, being of opinion that claim 4, the only one in issue, should be limited to the specific construction therein described and claimed, held that it was not infringed and dismissed the bill. From this decree, plaintiff appeals.
Elliott's patent is for certain improvements in a class of button-setting machines which are operated by foot or other power, and in which the buttons are fed from a hopper or chute to the clinching anvil or die. This machine is particularly adapted to attach buttons to shoes by means of wire staples, which are automatically formed in the machine from a spool or coil of wire. The buttons are delivered from a hopper into a chute, down which they slide in a single-file column to the wire-receiving position. The button-feeding mechanism is adapted to take the first button from the column, push it into a wire-receiving position, and hold it there while the wire is being threaded through the eye and until the staple driver has come into position to drive the staple through the fabric. While the staple is thus being driven and clinched, the feed finger of the button-feeding mechanism is returned into position ready to repeat the operation. These operations are performed by means of an operating plunger, to which the power is applied by a foot treadle or other suitable device.
Claim 4 relates solely to this button-feeding mechanism. It is desirable, if not necessary, that different sized buttons should be placed and held in position, and the feeding mechanism is provided with a compensating or lost motion feature, so that, after the button is fed into its position, the actuating mechanism may complete its normal operation of driving and clinching the staple. The controversy here turns on the special means of compensation employed in the plaintiff's and defendant's respective constructions. Plaintiff's and defendant's button-feeding mechanisms are best shown by the accompanying illustrations:
PLAINTIFF'S STRUCTURE
(Image Omitted)
(Image Omitted) Claim 4, covering plaintiff's construction as above illustrated, contains four elements: (1) A button feed finger, 12; (2) a feed arm 7; (3) a feed lever 6; (4) a spring connection, 10, between the feed lever and the feed finger, adapted to allow the feed lever to complete its normal stroke after the feed finger is arrested by the stoppage of the button. The feed finger is connected to the feed arm by a pivot, 70. The feed lever and feed arm are fulcrumed on a common pivot, 69. They have a pin and shoulder connection, 8 and 9, whereby they have a pivotal movement together in one direction and a relative pivotal movement in the opposite direction, so that, while operating in one direction, they are in effect an integral lever, and, while operating in the opposite direction, a split lever. A spring, 10, connects the two together, and is adapted to permit the feed lever, 6, to complete its normal movement after the movement of the feed finger is arrested by the stoppage of the button. The operating link, 3, is pivoted rigidly at its lower end to the feed lever, 6, and has a pin and slot connection at its upper end with the operating plunger. This mechanism is operated by the up and down movement of the plunger and co-operates in the manner briefly set forth above, with the staple forming and clinching mechanism of the machine.
Thus it will be seen that the compensating or lost motion device inheres primarily in the split lever construction of the feed lever and feed arm, and the spring connection between the feed lever and feed finger, whereby the operating link and the feed lever are permitted to complete their normal stroke in order to drive and clinch the staple after the feed finger and the feed arm are stopped by the button. As will appear later on examination of the file wrapper history of the patent application, the patentable novelty of this construction was found to inhere in these features, and claim 4 was allowed only because of the introduction of a feed arm as a fourth element of the combination, and the spring connection adapted to function in this specific manner.
Defendant's structure, as above illustrated, has a feed finger, 1, connected by a pivot, 10, to a feed lever, 2. This feed lever is fulcrumed on the pivot, 3, attached to the frame of the machine. Its lower end has a pin and slot connection with the operating link, 5, the upper end of which is rigidly pivoted to the plunger. A spring, 4, holds the feed finger in yielding engagement with the top of a button while being fed. A tension spring, 6, connects the pin at the lower end of the feed lever with the operating link. In actual operation, when the button feed finger and the feed lever have brought the button into staple-receiving position, and are positively stopped, the operating link and plunger are allowed to complete their normal stroke by reason of the spring, 6, yielding and thereby permitting the operating link, 5, to move relatively to the lower end of the feed lever.
This is the reverse of the mode of operation of plaintiff's construction. The feed lever, also, is not made up of a lever and a feed arm having pivotal movement together in one direction and a relatively pivotal movement in an opposite direction, as in plaintiff's construction, but is an integral, and not a split, lever. Plaintiff contends, however, that defendant's operating link, 5, is the equivalent of its feed lever, 6; that defendant's feed lever, 6, is the equivalent of its feed arm, 7, and that the pin, 8, operating in the slot, 7, is the equivalent of the abutting surfaces on its feed arm and feed lever, whereby pivotal movement together in one direction and relative pivotal movement in an opposite direction are obtained, and, further, that defendant's spring 4, connecting the feed finger and feed lever, and the spring 6, are the equivalent of its spring 10. The charge of infringement rests primarily upon these contentions.
In passing on this charge of infringement, a brief review of the file wrapper history of plaintiff's patent and of the prior art will be helpful. Elliott's original application described and claimed a combination of a feed finger, a pivoted lever attached to said feed finger, and a spring connection, substantially as described. This claim was rejected on two earlier patents issued to him, being Nos. 526,012 and 552,869. Later he amended the claim, describing a combination of a button feed finger and a feed lever, together with a spring connection between the two, to allow the feed lever to complete its normal stroke after the feed finger is arrested by the stoppage of the button, substantially as is described. In support of this amended claim and in order to avoid the references cited, he said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NO Nelson Mfg. Co. v. FE Myers & Bro. Co.
...Elec. Co., 256 U. S. 668, 677, 41 S. Ct. 600, 65 L. Ed. 1162; 20th Century Co. v. Taplin (C. C. A. 6) 181 F. 96; Elliott Mach. Co. v. Appeldoorn (C. C. A. 6) 267 F. 983, 987, and cases there cited; D'Arcy v. Marshall (C. C. A. 6) 259 F. 236; Arnold-Creager Co. v. Brick Co. (C. C. A. 6) 246 ......
- Cutler-Hammer Co. v. Pawling & Harnischfeger Co., 242.
-
Ottinger v. Ferro Stamping & Mfg. Co.
...for the broader claims originally presented, is now estopped to assert a different or broader construction. Elliott Machine Company v. P. B. Appeldoorn's Sons Company, 267 F. 983 (6th C. C. Construing the claims of the patent strictly in order to avoid not only the references to Ochsner and......