Hillard v. Remington Typewriter Co.
| Decision Date | 13 March 1911 |
| Docket Number | 131. |
| Citation | 186 F. 334 |
| Parties | HILLARD v. REMINGTON TYPEWRITER CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Frederick P. Fish, H. D. Donnelly, and W. W. Dodge, for appellant.
Kerr Page, Cooper & Hayward (Thomas B. Kerr and John C. Kerr, of counsel), for appellee.
Before COXE, WARD, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.
The patent in controversy was granted May 30, 1905, for an improvement in typewriters. It relates to line-locks, or, in other words, to the mechanism whereby the keys are automatically locked, at a predetermined point in the line of print, to notify the operator of the approach of the end of the line and thus prevent him from printing the letters one over the other at that point.
The claims in question relate to the second of the improvements described in the patent, viz., the means for releasing the line-lock. The line-lock lever is mounted at the extreme left of the rack bar, as shown in Fig. 1, and can be vibrated up and down upon the stud on which it is pivoted. The longer and heavier arm of this lever constitutes the line-lock stop which is prevented from dropping down and is held in normal position by a pin. When the carriage has been advanced sufficiently to bring the stop into the obstructive position which prevents further writing, by pressing down the key which is the shorter and lighter end of the lever, the longer end is raised above the arm on the rocker frame and writing can be resumed. To accomplish this result would seem to be an exceedingly simple mechanical problem. A lever is pivoted so that one end is longer than the other. Naturally the heavy end falls and the light end rises. If it be desired to raise the heavy end two ways of accomplishing this result would suggest themselves to the mechanic: First, to elevate the long end; and, second, to depress the short end. The second would be the simpler method and, if the operation were to be frequently repeated, it would be advantageous to form the short end into a key. Once given the lever and the necessity for raising the heavy end the means for accomplishing the desired result would occur to the veriest tyro in mechanics.
As this lever is at the rear of the machine and not easily reached or seen by the operator, the patentee has provided what he calls 'a more convenient means for tilting the line-lock stop out of its obstructive position to unlock the type keys. ' For this purpose he has provided at the left hand end of the top bank of keys an independent release key which, by a train of connecting mechanism, pushes up the heavy end of the line-lock lever when the release key is depressed by the finger of the operator. In the one case the line-lock lever is raised by pressing down its short end and in the other it is raised by pressing up its long end. In the first instance the finger of the operator falls directly on the key mounted on the short end of the lever itself and in the second it falls on a key in the keyboard which by a simple arrangement of connecting levers lifts up the long end of the line-lock lever.
The specification describes and shows the independent key, which is a key having an operative connection with the line-lock when the latter is in its obstructive position and means operated by the key for independently moving the line-lock out of its obstructive position. The patentee states that prior to his application means for unlocking the line-lock were in use, but such mechanism did not include an independent key. The specification concedes that in one of the prior structures the key which shifts the carriage from lower to upper case may be utilized to unlock the line-lock, but it is contended that the carriage shifting key is not an independent key. The principal advantage of the patented key is alleged to be that it performs its office without the performance of any other essential function and is thus more correct and accurate. The patented key is one which, when performing its function of a line-lock releaser, is incapable of performing any other function in the operation of writing and consists in certain novel features of construction of the key which are not limited to any particular form of line-lock. The drawings show two examples of release keys, one mounted on the carriage and the other on the keyboard. It is unnecessary to analyze all the claims in issue. Claim 8 is as follows:
'In a typewriter line-lock the combination of two stops, one of which is mounted in the escapement and movable therewith and the other of which is moved with the carriage into position to obstruct the escapement-stop, a key, a line-lock releaser, and a connection between the key and the line-lock releaser whereby the releaser is controlled by the key substantially as described.' The claim consists in a typewriter line-lock of a combination having the following elements: First: A stop, mounted in the escapement and movable therewith. Second: A stop moved with the carriage into a position to obstruct the escapement stop. Third: A key. Fourth: A line-lock releaser. Fifth: Connection between the key and the releaser for controlling the releaser by the key.
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 8.
Claim 11 is as follows:
'In a typewriter, the combination with a power-driven carriage, of a power-driven stop and a key-driven stop, brought into obstructive position with each other on the movement of the carriage, an independent key normally free from the carriage and means controlled thereby for positively removing the power-driven stop from its obstructive position, substantially as described.'
The claim contains the following elements in a typewriter combination: First: A power-driven stop and a key-driven stop brought into obstructive position with each other, on the movement of the carriage. Second: An independent key normally free from the carriage. Third: Means controlled by the key for positively removing the power-driven stop from its obstructive position.
Claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 11.
The defenses are lack of novelty and invention and noninfringement. Much was said in the Circuit Court and in this court, both in the briefs and orally, regarding the Brooks-Hillard interference, which was finally decided in favor of the latter. We do not understand, however, that it has any important bearing upon the present issues.
It was decided by the Circuit Court that no privity was legally established between Brooks and this defendant and the complainant expressly states in his brief as follows:
'But we have not and do not now claim estoppel by reason of the facts proven; only that they are persuasive of invention, and, as against the defendant, greatly increase the presumption of the same created by the grant of the patent.'
And again:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
WF & John Barnes Co. v. International Harvester Co.
...Central Cal. Canneries, 9 Cir., 7 F.2d 972, 977; Westinghouse v. Hien, 7 Cir., 159 F. 936, 941, 24 L.R.A.,N.S., 948; Hillard v. Remington Typewriter Co., 2 Cir., 186 F. 334; Dooley Improvements v. Motor Improvements, D.C., 18 F.Supp. 340), and the question of validity of the claims in inter......
-
Dunkley Co. v. Central California Canneries
...27 S. Ct. 141, 51 L. Ed. 281; Westinghouse v. Hien, 159 F. 936, 941, 87 C. C. A. 142, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 948; Hillard v. Remington Typewriter Co., 186 F. 334, 108 C. C. A. 534. The opinion passed in that proceeding is therefore ineffectual to establish the construction to be given plaintif......
-
Hazeltine Corporation v. Radio Corporation of America
...203 U. S. 476, 482, 27 S. Ct. 141, 51 L. Ed. 281; Fekete v. Robertson, 57 App. D. C. 73, 17 F.(2d) 335, 336; Hillard v. Remington Typewriter Co. (C. C. A. 2) 186 F. 334, 336. C. The Conductance Ratio Patent states clearly enough the effect of a change of conductance ratio on amplification a......
-
New Jersey Zinc Co. v. American Zinc, Lead & Smelting Co.
... ... thus casually noted ... In ... Hillard v. Remington Typewriter Co., 186 F. 334, 108 ... C.C.A. 534, decided in the Second Circuit, in ... ...