Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Rubber Tire Wheel Co.

• Citation: 116 F. 363
• Decision Date: 06 May 1902
• Docket Number: 1,071.
• Parties: GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. et al. v. RUBBER TIRE WHEEL CO. et al.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

116 F. 363

GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. et al. v. RUBBER TIRE WHEEL CO. et al.

No. 1,071.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 6, 1902

H. A Toulmin and Edmund Wetmore, for appellants.

Paul A Staley, John R. Bennett, and Border Bowman, for appellees.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio.

This is a bill to restrain infringement of letters patent No 554,675, issued February 18, 1896, to Arthur W. Grant, for improvements in rubber tire wheels. The claims of the patent are as follows:

'(1) A vehicle wheel having a metallic rim with angularly projecting flanges to form a channel or groove with tapered or inclined sides, a rubber tire, the inner portion of which is adapted to fit in said groove or channel, and the outer portion having sides at an angle to the inner portion, the angle or corner between the outer and inner portions being located within the outer periphery of the flanges, and independent retaining wires passing entirely through the inner portions of said tire, and also within the outer peripheries of the flanges, substantially as described.

'(2) A vehicle wheel having a metallic rim with outwardly projecting flanges at an angle to the plane of said wheel so as to form a channel or groove having tapered or inclined sides, a rubber tire, the inner portion of which is adapted to fit in said tapered groove or channel, and the outer of exposed portions formed at an angle thereto, the angle or corner between the said portions being placed within the outer periphery of said flanges, openings extending entirely through the unexposed portion of said tire, and independent retaining wires in said openings, and a reinforcing strip of fibrous material placed at the bottom of said tire and wholly within said flanges, substantially as specified.'

Figures 2 and 4 of the drawings of the patent are set out below.

(Image Omitted)

Figure 2 is a sectional elevation of the wheel rim, shown partly in perspective. Figure 4 is a transverse sectional view of the rubber tire in detail. The specifications of the patent are as follows:

'In constructing my improved rubber tire, I take an ordinary vehicle wheel, preferably with a plain wooden felly, a, and to this wooden felly, a, I secure a metallic rim, b, having at its edges outwardly projecting flanges, b'. These flanges, b', extend outwardly from the rim, b, at an angle, so as to form a groove or channel having tapered or beveled sides, with the bottom of said groove or channel smaller in cross section than the top. In this groove or channel I place a rubber tire, c, which is of peculiar shape. This rubber tire is formed preferably of a single piece, but not continuous. It is provided throughout its length with openings, c' c', through which are passed retaining wires, d. These retaining wires are separate and independent, and extend entirely through the openings c', and the ends of each of said retaining wires are united together after the rubber has been compressed endwise on said wires, thus forming two independent and continuous retaining wires within the rubber tire, the ends of which, by reason of the compression, are brought together so as to entirely cover the wires and the united ends thereof. The tire proper, c, is formed of substantially the same depth as width. The outer periphery, however, is formed on the arc of a circle of much smaller diameter than the width of the rim, the exposed sides of the tire being formed preferably on the lines c2 at an angle to each other, and also the flanges b' of the wheel rim. The unexposed portion of the tire, or that portion which is inclosed within the rim, is formed of substantially the same shape as the inner channel of the rim-- that is to say, it is tapered from the outside inwardly--so that the sides of the inner or unexposed portion of the tire are also formed on the lines c3, forming, with the lines c2, an obtuse angle. The lines c3, however, are less in length than the inside of the flanges b', so that the angle or corner, c4, between the sides c2 and c3, falls below the outer periphery of the flanges b' and within the channel between said flanges. The openings c', through which the retaining wires pass, are also formed within the inner or unexposed portion of the tire-- that is to say, the tops of the openings are substantially on a line with the angle or corner, c4, so that the tops of said openings stand below the outer periphery of the flanges b'. The bottom portion of the tire is reinforced with a canvas strip, c5, which covers the entire bottom, and may project slightly along the sides c3, but does not in any case extend up as far as the angle or corner c4. The tire has been described thus minutely because the constructions described are important. By having the sides of the exposed and unexposed portion of the tire formed inclined and at an angle to each other, as described, the compression of the tire in use is such that all portions of the rubber are retained within the channel or groove, and no portion of the rubber is forced over the side of the flange, which would result in cutting or grooving the tire at the corner or angle, which would eventually cause the tire to break from this point inwardly to the opening c'. The reinforcing of the bottom of the tire by the canvas strip, which may be formed into the rubber, is desirable, as it has a tendency to prevent the breaking of the rubber below that portion of the tire which is between the retaining wires and the rim. At the same time, by having the canvas strip wholly within the rim, all danger of stripping the edge of the canvas from the rubber, which would eventually result in a fracture of the rubber to the opening c', is prevented.'

The defenses most relied upon are anticipation, want of patentable invention and noninfringement. The decree was for the complainants.

Before LURTON, DAY, and SEVERENS, Circuit Judges.

LURTON Circuit Judge, after making the foregoing statement of the case, .

The subject of the controversy is the simple one of solid rubber tires for vehicles. When Grant entered the field as an inventor of rubber tires, he found it occupied by an army of patentees who had preceded him, and no less than 80 prior patents have been put in evidence as anticipations or as illustrations of the history of the art. Grant, in part, seems to recognize the crowded character of the field open to him, for he concludes an account of his construction by claiming that, by his mode of construction, he has produced 'a rubber tired wheel rim which is capable of more use and which will remain in position better than any other tire which has ever been put upon the market.'

The first claim of the Grant patent is for a combination of three elements: First. A metallic channel rim, having angularly projecting flanges, shown as b' in Fig. 2, forming a channel with inclining sides, into which the rubber fits. Second. A solid rubber tire having an inner portion adapted to fit in the channel rim and an outer portion forming an angle or corner with the inner portion, the corner being somewhat below the top of the channel seat or metallic rim. Third. Independent retaining wires passing entirely through the rubber tires, horizontally, and located below the outer periphery of the flaring sides of the channel seat. The drawings heretofore set out will better explain these parts, especially if examined in the light of the description of the patent also fully set out. The second claim is like the first, but adds a reinforcing strip of canvas across the bottom of the rubber tire.

Metal channel tire seats in great variety of form appear in the earlier patents. In some the sides of the metal channel incline inwards, and thus aid in holding the tire in place, and this method characterizes a class of rubber tired wheels, where retaining bands or wires were not used, as 'clincher' tires. In others the sides of the channel rim are perpendicular; in others there were ribs or projections on the inside of such channel sides which served to assist in holding the tire in its seat. In still others the sides are shown to flare outwards to a greater or less degree, as in Grant's. The exposed portion of a rubber tire is liable to lateral expansion under compression from use, and to project over the sides of a metal channel or tire seat, and to be sheared or cut by such contact. Two ways of avoiding this kind of injurious cutting were taught in the old art, and in some cases both methods were combined. One obvious method was to round the edges of such rims. Another was to make the edges flaring; thus affording a space between the flaring side and the rubber tire into which the expanded tire might crowd itself without projecting over the edge of the metal seat. Methods for preventing such flaring effects appear very early in the art. Thus, in the English patent of 1884 to Clark, he says he forms his tire seat with 'straight parallel sides slightly widened out at the mouth. ' In the United States patent to Owen of 1887, he recognized this cutting from lateral expansion under compression, and shows two or more forms of metal channel in which the edges of the rim are flaring at the top. To further guard against the trouble, he, after referring to this expansion under compression, says in his specifications:

'I reduce the width of the tire outside of the rim or felly, making it either of a flat or concave form, or of other form falling within the semi-circle, so that when subjected to pressure the lateral expansion or enlargement will not cause the tire to project beyond the rim.'

This, he says, is plainly shown by Figs. 5 and 6 of his drawings.

In the patents to Elliot, Nos. 440,701 and 440,702, the channel sides are...