Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. Stickney
| Decision Date | 13 April 1903 |
| Docket Number | 1,814. |
| Citation | 123 F. 79 |
| Parties | FAIRBANKS, MORSE & CO. v. STICKNEY et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Paul Synnestvedt and F. W. H. Clay, for appellant.
John E Stryker, for appellees.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota.
Before CALDWELL, SANBORN, and THAYER, Circuit Judges.
This is an action to restrain the infringement of letters patent No 655,440, issued August 7, 1900, to Frank G. Hobart, who assigned the patent to Fairbanks, More & Co., the complainant below and the appellant in this court. The invention covered by the patent, in the language of the patentee--
'Relates particularly to that class of devices which are designed to be used in connecting and disconnecting a moving or driving part with an idler part, or piece to be driven, and is of the class commonly known as 'friction-clutches,' * * * (and) has for its object, primarily, the construction of a device of the type mentioned which will be compact and economical in construction, reliable and efficient in its operation, and arranged to be readily thrown into and out of operation by hand.'
The patentee also says:
Referring to drawings on the following page, which illustrate the complainant's device as well as the alleged infringing device, figure 1 in the drawing illustrating the complaint's device, represents a driving or power shaft; 2, a loose rotatable pulley mounted on the shaft, carrying a gear (indicated by figure 3) around which a belt may be passed. This loose pulley flares at one end, and has a recess therein in the shape of a truncated cone, into which a cone-shaped friction sleeve (indicated by figures 4 and 5), that is keyed to the shaft, and rotates with it, but is capable of some longitudinal movement along the shaft, may be forced, and, by coming in contact with the inner surface of the loose pulley, compel it to rotate with the shaft. At the end of the shaft is a threaded extension or spindle, provided with two threads (figures 7 and 10) of different diameters and pitch. Engaging the larger of these threads, 7, on the spindle is a collar block, 8, which is held in place by a nut, 9, mounted on the smaller thread, 10, of the spindle. The collar block, 8, and the threaded extension or spindle revolve with the shaft. At the outer end of the spindle is a hand-wheel or nut, 11, provided with a guard to protect the hand, 15, which hand-wheel or nut engages the small thread, 10, of the spindle. Toggle levers, 12, 12, connect the friction sleeve, 5, with the hand-wheel or nut, 11. When the operator desires to start the machinery, he causes the friction block, 5, to move inward along the shaft so that it will engage the loose pulley, and cause the latter to revolve with the shaft, by simply grasping the hand-wheel, 11, so as to prevent it from revolving with the spindle, whereupon the hand-wheel or nut travels or is drawn inwardly along the smaller thread of the shaft or spindle, the same being in motion, and by means of the toggle arms the friction sleeve, 5, is thrust against the inner surface of the driven sleeve or loose pulley, 2, binds it firmly, and causes it to revolve with the shaft, thus setting the machinery to be moved in operation.
(Image Omitted)
COMPLAINANT'S DEVICE.
(Image Omitted)
DEFENDANT'S DEVICE.
The patent contains, in all, nine claims which differ very little in phraseology, but we only deem it necessary to quote one of the claims in full--the fourth-- which will serve to illustrate what the patentee declared to be his invention.
'(4) A friction-clutch comprising a driving-shaft; a loose gear or pulley mounted thereon; a sliding friction-sleeve mounted upon the shaft in position to be thrown into and out of engagement with the loose gear; a system of bell-crank levers pivotally attached at their angles to the sleeve; a collar or block fixed relatively as to movement between the shaft and sleeve, said block forming a fulcrum for one arm of each of the levers, and means for operating the levers to move the sleeve; said means comprising a threaded extension of said shaft, a hand-wheel or nut working thereon, and connections between the bell-crank levers and said hand-wheel.'
The sixth claim mentions the guard flange, 15, as one of the elements of the combination covered by the patent, but this element or part is not mentioned specifically in the other claims.
The patented device seems to be simple, compact, effective in operation and especially useful in connection with gas engines, in which class of the crank shaft must acquire considerable momentum before the load can be imposed which it is designed to carry. Up to July, 1901, about 500 friction clutches, made according to the specifications of the patent, had been manufactured and sold by the complainant.
The defenses to the action that have been interposed are want of patentable novelty and noninfringement. The second of these defenses, in our judgment, is without merit, as the lower court held. It will be observed at a glance that the patented device and the infringing device are very much alike, the one being almost a counterpart of the other. The only noticeable differences in the method of constructing the two clutches are these: In the complainant's clutch the rotatable pulley, 2, is mounted directly on the shaft, 1, while in the defendant's clutch the pulley is journaled on a removable collar which is keyed to the shaft. In both devices, however the pulley is mounted on the shaft; the only difference being that, while in the one case the pulley comes in direct contact with the body of the shaft, in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buchanan v. Wyeth Hardware & Manufacturing Co.
...the presumption of validity arising from issuance of the patent. Zip Mfg. Co. v. Pusch (C. C. A.) 2 F.(2d) 828; Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. Stickney (C. C. A.) 123 F. 79. That a combination of old elements may be patentable is settled by the authorities. The rule is stated by this court in Na......
-
Detroit Motor Appliance Co. v. Burke
...and approving the Furber patent. The seal of approval of the Patent Office should not be lightly set aside. Fairbanks Morse & Co. v. Stickney, 123 F. 79, 59 C. C. A. 209; Brill v. North Jersey St. Ry. Co. (C. C.) 124 F. 778; United Shirt & Collar Co. v. Beattie (C. C.) 138 F. 136; Kelsey Co......
-
Hall v. Keller
...and that the accused device of appellees infringes it. Donner v. Sheer Pharmacal Corp., 8 Cir., 64 F.2d 217; Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. Stickney et al., 8 Cir., 123 F. 79; Buchanan et al. v. Wyeth Hardware & Mfg. Co., 8 Cir., 47 F.2d 704; Stevens v. Carl Schmid, Inc., 2 Cir., 73 F.2d 54; Can......
-
Gillette Safety Razor Co. v. Hawley Hardware Co.
...This doctrine is clearly stated by Judge Thayer, speaking for the Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, in Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. Stickney, 123 F. 79, at page 82, where he said: "Even if it be conceded that the individual elements composing the combination are to be found in the prio......