Hess-Bright Mfg. Co. v. Standard Roller-Bearing Co.

• Citation: 177 F. 435
• Decision Date: 10 March 1910
• Docket Number: 233.
• Parties: HESS-BRIGHT MFG. CO. et al. v. STANDARD ROLLER-BEARING CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

177 F. 435

HESS-BRIGHT MFG. CO. et al. v. STANDARD ROLLER-BEARING CO.

No. 233.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

March 10, 1910

Dwight M. Lowrey and Robert Fletcher Rogers, for complainants.

Augustus B. Stoughton, for defendant.

HOLLAND District Judge.

Two patents, No. 822,723, granted June 5, 1906, and No. 838,303 granted December 11, 1906, to Robert Conrad, were transferred by him to the Deutsche Waffen und Munitions-Fabriken, a German Company, by assignment duly recorded in the United States; the Hess-Bright Manufacturing Company being the sole licensee in this country.

Suit was instituted for the infringement of claims Nos. 2, 8, and 9 of the first and of claim No. 1 of the second. The defendant makes the sole defense of lack of invention. Hence the only question for the court is whether or not the three claims of the first and the one claim of the second patents are valid; that is to say, do they cover patentable subject-matter, and did it involve invention to produce the bearing in view of the prior art?

Patent No. 822,723 is for an improvement in ball bearings. There are two grooved rings, the grooves facing each other, so as to form a channel or raceway for the balls; the sides of the grooves are arranged to overhang the balls, so as to prevent the lateral displacement of the rings; and, further, that the sides of the grooves are uninterrupted throughout their circumference. The parts are interlocked with each other, so as to form a unitary structure, and at the same time all of the surfaces which are in rolling contact are continuous and uninterrupted, so that the wear upon the parts will be uniform. The balls are introduced by eccentric displacement in fact, this seems about the only practical way it is possible to assemble the parts.

The claims, which the bill avers have been infringed by the defendant, are as follows:

'2. A ball bearing including two concentric rings having opposing grooves on their adjacent faces, the sides of said grooves engaging the balls to prevent substantial lateral movement, said sides being uninterrupted throughout their circumference and adapted to admit balls to the grooved space between them by displacement of the rings eccentrically to each other.'

'8. A bearing comprising two concentric rings, balls between said rings, each ring having a groove both sides of which overhang said balls and are continuous and practically integral throughout their circumference, the number of balls being such that they can be inserted in the space between the rings when the latter are displaced from their normal position, and means for distributing the balls throughout the length of the groove, whereby the two rings are held together against axial displacement by the engagement of the balls with the overhanging walls of the grooves and the parts are held together so as to form a unitary device.

'9. A bearing comprising two concentric rings, a and b, balls, c, between said rings, each ring having a groove both sides of which overhang said balls and are continuous and practically integral throughout their circumference, the edges of said sides being separated so far from each other that by displacement of the rings eccentrically a limited number of balls may be inserted between them, and distributing devices adapted to be introduced between said edges and into the spaces between said balls when the rings are restored to concentric position, whereby the two rings are held together against axial displacement by the engagement of the balls with the overhanging walls of the grooves and the parts are held together so as to form a unitary device.'

Many patents have been issued for ball-bearing devices, which have not been entirely satisfactory, for the reason that the tracks or ways were interrupted, and the balls consequently could not travel freely therein. It was old to have inner and outer rings with opposing grooves, but the sides of these grooves were interrupted in one way or another to permit the introduction of the balls. In some cases filling openings were provided, and in some instances these were filled up or plugged after the balls...