Gunn v. Savage

Decision Date03 March 1887
Citation30 F. 366
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
PartiesGUNN, Trustee, and others v. SAVAGE and others.

Bowdoin S. Parker and Charles E. Perkins, for plaintiffs.

Marcus H. Holcomb and Charles E. Mitchell, for defendants.

SHIPMAN J.

This is a bill in equity which is founded upon the alleged infringement of letters patent No. 314,189 and No. 314,192 each dated March 17, 1885, and each issued to William Pearce the first-mentioned patent being for improvements in dies for forging ox-shoes, and the second being for an improved method of forging ox-shoes. The second patent is for the method of making shoes by the use of the dies of the first patent. As the decision of this case depends, in my opinion, upon the construction to be placed upon No. 314,189, it is important to give in full the substantial part of the specification which is as follows:

'The design of my invention is to enable ox-shoes to be more easily, quickly, and cheaply produced by means of dies, to which end said invention consists principally in the construction of the dies, whereby a number of shoes may be forged at one heat from a bar, substantially as and for the purpose hereinafter shown. It consists, further, in the series of dies used for forging a shoe, substantially as and for the purpose hereinafter set forth. It consists, finally, in combining with the forging dies, constructed substantially as shown, a trimming die adapted to receive the sprue-connected blanks and to trim from each the surplus metal, substantially as and for the purpose hereinafter specified.
'In the carrying into effect to my invention I make use of two forging dies, A and B, which for convenience are formed within one block of metal, and are arranged side by side, but may, if desired, be formed separately. The first of said dies, A, has the general size and shape of the desired shoe, C, but is without means for forming the nail groove, while said second die, B, has the exact size and shape desired, and is provided with a a-shaped rib, b, which operates to produce the said nail groove, c, in said shoe. In practice a straight bar of iron is heated and placed over the die, A, in substantially a line with the traverse centers of the calk-recesses, a and aa, in which position said bar is subjected to the action of a plain-faced upper die, and caused to fill the cavities of said die, A. The partially forged shoe, C, is now placed over the second die, B, and by means of said upper die is forced into the sam and receives the exact shape required, including the nail groove, c.

'In order that shoes may be forged directly from a bar, at each end of each die, A and B, is formed an outward and downward inclined face, a 2 and b 3, respectively, which operates to produce a a-shaped transverse notch, c 1, at each end of the shoe, C, and nearly severs the metal at such point. After the first shoe, C, has been partially completed by action of the die, A, the heated bar is moved forward, until the notch, c 1, at its rear end fits over the correspondingly shaped part that is formed by the calk-recess, a 1, and the adjacent inclined face, a 2, and thus operates as a gauge and enables the longitudinal position of the bar to be easily and accurately determined. After shoe, C, has passed through the finishing die, B, it is placed over a female trimming die, D, within which is an opening, d 1, that corresponds to the outline of the completed shoe, and is then operated upon by an upper male die, E, which forces said shoe through said opening and removes all surplus metal from its edges. In order that said shoe when connected with the bar may more readily find a bearing upon said lower trimming die, the ends of the latter are provided with faces, d 1, which correspond to the faces, a 2 and b 3, of the dies, A and B.'

The claims are as follows:

'(1) The forging dies described, each of which beyond the end of its intaglio has the metal cut away to form a downward and outward inclining face, a or a 1, substantially as and for the purpose specified. (2) The dies, A and B, constructed as described, and adapted for forging an ox-shoe from a straight bar of metal, substantially as set forth. (3) The series of dies, A, B, D, and E, constructed as described, and adapted for forging and trimming an

The invention which was in fact made by the patentee consisted of two parts: (1) The outward and downward inclined face at each end of each die, A and B, and which is particularly described in the first claim. The defendants do not infringe this claim. (2) Prior to this invention of Pearce, the blank was subjected to one or more forging or bending operations before it was placed in the die, which gave it substantially the form of an ox-shoe. By his invention, a straight bar of heated iron having been placed in die, A, was subjected to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Eclipse Mach. Co. v. JH Specialty Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 7 Abril 1933
    ...claim. Tinker v. Wilber Eureka M. & R. Mfg. Co., 1 F. 138, 139; Frazer v. Gates & Scoville Iron Works (C. C.) 22 F. 439, 442; Gunn v. Savage (C. C.) 30 F. 366, 369; Windle v. Parks & Woolson Mach. Co. (C. C. A.) 134 F. The reliance being on the drawings, and the specification containing no ......
  • Permutit Co v. Graver Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 23 Noviembre 1931
    ...Co., 160 U. S. 110, 116, 16 S. Ct. 240, 40 L. Ed. 358; Tinker v. Wilber Eureka Mower & Reaper Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 1 F. 138, 139; Gunn v. Savage (C. C.) 30 F. 366, 369; Windle v. Parks & Woolson Machine Co. (C. C. A.) 134 F. 381, 384, 385. 10 Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U. S. 568, 573, 24 L. Ed. 235......
  • Karl Kiefer Mach Co. v. Heyman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 17 Diciembre 1914
    ... ... 236, 98 C. C. A. 144. Others are ... referred to, and many more could be. Cases relating wholly to ... the sufficiency of description are Gunn v. Savage ... (C.C.) 30 F. 366; Windle v. Parks & Woolson M ... Co., 134 F. 381, 67 C.C.A. 363; Herman v. Youngstown ... Car Mfg. Co., 191 ... ...
  • Davis-Bournonville Co. v. Alexander Milburn Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 8 Enero 1924
    ...show them to be such. The defendant argues that one may not look to the drawings to supply a defect in the specifications. Gunn v. Savage (C.C.) 30 F. 366; Windle v. & Woolson Mach. Co., 134 F. 381, 67 C.C.A. 363; Fulton Co. v. Powers Regulator Co. (C.C.A.) 263 F. 578, 581; George Cutter Co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT