Kalamazoo Ry. Supply Co. v. Duff Mfg. Co.

• Citation: 113 F. 264
• Decision Date: 07 January 1902
• Docket Number: 978.
• Parties: KALAMAZOO RY. SUPPLY CO. v. DUFF MFG. CO.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

113 F. 264

KALAMAZOO RY. SUPPLY CO. v. DUFF MFG. CO.

No. 978.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

January 7, 1902

This was a bill by the Duff Manufacturing Company against the Kalamazoo Railway Supply Company for an injunction and for an account and recovery of damages for the alleged infringement of letters patent No. 312,316, issued February 17, 1885, to Josiah Barrett. Claim 3 is the one specifically alleged to have been infringed by the defendant, and is as follows '(3) In a lifting jack, a lever having its inner end composed of a stem provided with curved seats, and of side plates having openings in line with such seats, in combination with pawls 22 and 23, having their pivotal shafts formed integral with their lower ends, said shafts being constructed to fit in the openings in the side plates and in the seats in the stem, and having a firm bearing therein substantially as set forth. ' The defenses relied on are First, invalidity of the patent; and, second noninfringement. Upon final hearing upon the pleadings and proofs the case resulted in a decree in favor of the plaintiff, adjudging that the patent was valid, and finding that claim 3 was infringed by the defendant, and the case is brought here on appeal for review.

See 100 F. 357.

Fred. L. Chappell, for appellant.

James I. Kay, for appellee.

Before LURTON and DAY, Circuit Judges, and CLARK, District Judge.

CLARK District Judge, after making the foregoing statement, .

Two points of advantage are insisted upon in the improvement covered by claim 3 as involving invention as distinguished from mere mechanical improvement, such as would be apparent to any one skilled in the art. The advantages are described by one of the machinists, introduced as a witness as being:

'The great strength and durability of the jack, the construction giving an extra length of bearing or wearing surface, and great strength between the pawl body and its shaft. The strength in the support for the pawl was obtained by the seating of this shaft for its full length in the handle, the pawl shaft being supported in a curved seat for the full width of the pawl, and, in addition to that, in the same seat extending into the bearings or side plates, which held the pawl into the seat.'

With reference to this assented improvement over anything found in the prior state of the art, the learned judge, presiding in the circuit court, said:

'The idea of a lever with its inner end composed of a stem with a curved seat presents no novelty, but this patent presents the first instance called to the attention of the court in which this seat is extended and the long bearing obtained by lengthening the pawl shafts so that they extend into the side plates. The play of the pawls in the complainant's device is not restricted. The pawls are held firmly in place, and the seat is extended by means of the side plates the full length of the bearings and pawls. This result had been sought, but not attained, before the issue of the patent to Barrett, and the proof shows that the lifting jack made after this patent practically displaced all previous jacks. In the Otstot patent there is no 'stem provided with curved seats and side plates having openings in line with such seats,' nor pawls 'having their pivotal shafts formed integral with their lower ends,' said shafts being constructed to fit in the openings in the side plates and in the seats in the stem and have a firm bearing therein. * * * The McIntyre and other patents introduced do not anticipate the third claim of complainant's patent, and, although the step from the previous devices was a short one, it was the all-important step, and shows more than mechanical skill which had been expended on the previous long line of lifting jacks displayed in the patent office. I find the complainant's patent valid.'

And the circuit court disposed of the question of infringement by saying:

'The defendant's jack is a copy of the complainant's, except that the stem is split in the center, and then riveted together, and it has only one separable side plate instead of two; but everything contained in the third claim of complainant's patent is found in the defendant's jack, and the imitation has not even sought to be disguised.'

The peculiar advantages in the handle and pawl construction in suit and relied on in the argument at bar were said to be in that feature of the construction by which the pawl shafts were made integral with the pawls and extended beyond them, resting in the curved seats in the hand lever and within side plates, by which they are held securely in the curved seats, thereby providing for a full and free swing of the pawls, and a solid support of the pawl upon the hand lever directly under the body of the pawl, this being of greater width than the pawl body, because the pawl shafts extend out into the bearings; the combination making a firm and durable connection, capable of sustaining the heavy loads, jolts, and strains to which lifting jacks are constantly subjected in practical use. Stated in another form: It is claimed that in practical operation, by means of the broad seat for the pawl shafts, which are formed integral with the pawls and extend into the side plates, the combination sustains great weight and strain, and avoids 'shearing strain' by retaining the pawl in position, and thereby avoiding the danger of breaking by striking against the sides of the seats for the pawl shafts. The evidence does disclose that the operative machine made under the patent in practical use does sustain great weight, and the danger of accident from breaking down, whether from direct weight or 'shearing strain,' is prevented, or much diminished. As the general construction and practical use of this and other lifting jacks are well understood, a more particular statement of the case or description of this and other devices is not deemed necessary.

Certain questions were made on argument in this court in relation to rulings in the court below on the admission of parts of the evidence. The record does not disclose, however, what ruling was made in the court below, nor does it disclose that particular exception was taken and reserved, and there is no specific assignment of error on this ground. It is assumed that the practice in this court is similar to what is said to be the practice on appeal in the supreme court of the state of Michigan in equity cases, under which error in the admission or rejection of evidence may be relied on for reversal without any assignment of error, and without the record showing any specific ruling in the court below on which such error is assigned. But the supreme court of the United States as early as 1791 adopted the system of appellate procedure of the court of chancery in England as outlines for its practice on appeals in equity, and the practice and procedure on appeals in equity are the same as those of the English system, as changed and modified by the rules of the supreme court of the United States or by act of congress. And the system of procedure on appeal in the supreme court of the United States, with such rules as have been adopted by the circuit court of appeals, constitute the system of procedure in the circuit court of appeals; those courts having, by rule, adopted the practice in the supreme court of the United States, so far as the same shall be...