Krajewski v. Pharr

• Decision Date: 04 December 1900
• Docket Number: 849.
• Citation: 105 F. 514
• Parties: KRAJEWSKI et al. v. PHARR et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

105 F. 514

KRAJEWSKI et al. v. PHARR et al.

No. 849.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

December 4, 1900

The appellants, Thomas F. Krajewski, Alfonso Pesant, Jose A Pesant, and Albert Grossman, under the firm name of Krajewski, Pesant & Co., filed a bill in the circuit court against the appellees, John N. Pharr and John S. Bussey partners under the firm name of Pharr & Bussey, for the infringement of letters patent No. 349,503, issued on September 21, 1886, to the appellant Thomas J. Krajewski and to James L. Cochrane, as assignee, for a machine for breaking and cutting cane. Cochrane, the assignee, having died, the title to the one-half interest in the patent owned by him was duly assigned by his administratrix, Jeanette D. Cochrane, to the appellants. The object of the invention was stated by the patentees to be 'to prepare any kind of cane and other substances, more especially sugar cane, so as to facilitate its crushing or pressing, and the extraction of juice. ' The machine is illustrated in the accompanying drawing.

(Image Omitted)

And its construction and mode of operation may be best explained in the language of the specification: 'In the accompanying drawings, Fig. 1 is a plan or top view of a mechanism embodying my invention. Fig. 2 is a vertical longitudinal section of the same. Similar letters of reference designate corresponding parts in both figures. The breaking or cutting mechanism consists, essentially, of two rollers, D, E, B designates the pressing rollers or the mill. C. designates an endless carrier for the cane. The rollers, D and E, are preferably composed of a number of collars keyed to or otherwise fastened on two shafts, d and e. The ends of these shafts projecting beyond the collars, form journals, which are supported in bearings, A. These bearings are arranged on two pedestals or frames, F, G. These rollers, D, E, are provided externally with teeth. These teeth are approximately parallel to each other, and are zigzagged from end to end of the rollers, or parallel with the axes thereof. The teeth of each roller do not, however, touch those of the other roller. The rollers are made of collars fitted on shafts in the manner described, to facilitate their manufacture. The teeth on each collar run obliquely, and those of adjacent collars extend in reverse directions. In other words, the teeth on alternate collars extend in the same direction, and the teeth on the intermediate collars extend at reverse inclines thereto. It will therefore be seen that continuous zigzag teeth extending from end to end of the rollers are formed by properly adjusting the collars on the shafts. The edges of the teeth are made more or less sharp, so as to cut or to break only, and not to primarily act as pressing devices. At the ends of the shafts, d, e, are fastened two equal intermeshing gear wheels, m, only one of which is shown in the drawings. These gear wheels maintain the two rollers, E, D, in the same relative position with their teeth, intermeshing and equidistant from each other. Provision will preferably be made for adjusting one of the rollers bodily towards and from the other. This can be done by arranging the bearings of one in housings and combining screws with them in a well-known manner. Motion may be transmitted to these rollers through the agency of gear wheels or belts and pulleys in any known way. The pressing rollers, B, may be of ordinary form, provided with smooth surfaces, and arranged in frames in proper relation with each other to press the juice out of cane supplied to them. They may be closer together than ordinarily, because they have only to press the cane, and not to additionally break and cut it up. The endless carrier, C, may be of any approved construction. The cane is carried by it up an incline to the rollers, D, E, and it descends thence along a downward incline or chute, L, to the rollers, B. A bridge, H, extends between the carrier, C, and the rollers, D, E. Below the roller, D, is a pan, N, for catching an juice which may run from the cane. The operation is as follows: Cane is carried on the cane carrier, C, and delivered on the bridge, H, thereby bringing it within reach of the teeth of the breaking and cutting rollers, D, E. These preferably run faster than the carrier, C, and will draw the cane between them their teeth cutting and breaking it and partly squeezing it. Whatever juice is expressed will fall into the pan, N. The broken can will fall on the incline or chute, L, and slide along the latter to the rollers of the grinding mill or rollers, B, which press out as much of the remaining juice as possible. By regulating the distance between the breaking and cutting rollers, D, E, the cane may be only broken, and the teeth made to only partly cut into it, or the cane may be cut up into short pieces, as may be desired. I prefer the teeth of the rollers, D, E, to run diagonally or in zigzag lines, because, as the cane is usually thrown on the carrier in various positions, it frequently reaches the rollers in a position parallel thereto, and, entering between the teeth thereof in the same parallel line would be delivered from the rollers without being cut; but, if the cane is placed on the carrier so as to reach the rollers in a position perpendicular thereto, straight teeth running parallel therewith can be used. The two cutting rollers may be placed in close proximity to the pressing rollers, and be even placed in the same pedestals therewith. They may be placed at any distance from the pressing rollers, or even in the position perpendicular to that of the pressing rollers. It may be desirable to have more than two cutting rollers used, so as to break and cut up cane in very small pieces. ' The machine used by the defendants, and which it is claimed by the appellants infringes theirs, was manufactured by the Birmingham Machine & Foundry Company, of Birmingham, Ala., but has not been patented. In their answer the appellees denied infringement, and submitted the following additional issues: '(1) Nonpatentability of the matters described in the specification and in the claim in the patent in suit, if tested by its own literature, or by the state of the art to which it relates. (2) Invalidity by reason of anticipation, prior publication and public knowledge of the device, combination, or mechanism sought to be patented, and its prior public use before alleged invention of Krajewski. ' The cause was heard upon the pleadings and proofs, and the court directed a decree dismissing the bill. From the decree thus rendered the appellants have appealed to this court.

Edwin H. Brown and J. D. Rouse (Wm. Grant and Charles S. Jones, on the brief), for appellants.

J. R. Beckwith, for appellees.

Before PARDEE and SHELBY, Circuit Judges, and MAXEY, District Judge.

SHELBY Circuit Judge, after stating the case as above, .

There has been in use for a great many years what is known as the 'three-roll mill' for compressing the juice from sugar cane. It consists of three rolls, mounted and framed rotated by gear wheels. The rolls were made sometimes with and sometimes without grooves. The purpose of the grooves was to firmly hold the cane as it was drawn between the rolls. Cane of full length was passed between the upper and front lower rolls, and the crushed mass was then made to pass between the top and rear lower rolls. The juice pressed out was caught in a pan, and the bagasse removed by a belt. The mill was sometimes so constructed as to place the rolls upright in the frame, and then, when the rolls contained grooves or channels, their function was not only to firmly hold the cane, but also to receive and carry the expressed juice to the pan or collecting trough below. In the use of these mills, unaided by an machine or process to prepare the cane, there was great loss, on account of the failure of the mill to express all of the juice. This is shown by the evidence, and seems to have been a matter of common knowledge. To secure better results, it was evident that the cane must have preliminary treatment. The record shows that several attempts preceded Krajewski's to make a machine to prepare the cane for the mill. The British patent, No. 2,586, of 1882, is a device for splitting and partially crushing the cane. Faure's patent, No. 250,720, Ferron's patent, No. 279,235, Chapin's patent, No. 321,007, Newell's patent, No. 186,100, and the Hungerford patent, No. 346,817, are all devices intended to prepare the cane for the mill. Each of them may briefly be described as a cane shredder. They are devices for tearing or shredding the cane. The result was usually produced by toothed rolls geared to rotate at different speeds. The result of the work of the shredders is to break or tear or split the stalk longitudinally, and so reduce the work of the three-roll mill. None of these machines was constructed to cut or break the cane in short lengths transversely. The shredders did not cut the cane in short lengths, so as to secure a uniform feed of it to the mill. The Krajewski machine is not a shredder, but a machine for breaking or cutting cane. It is not made to tear, shred, or split the cane, but to cut or break it transversely in short pieces, so that the three-roll mill may be fed with it in a uniform manner. It does not tear the cane longitudinally, or lacerate the fibre, so as to produce a mass of shredded stalk, irregular in volume. The result produces pieces transversely cut or broken. The fact that the Krajewski machine produced results so different from the shredders indicates a difference in its parts and mechanism. The Krajewski machine contains two rolls having teeth which are zigzag and intermeshing, and when intermeshed equidistant from each other, and of such sharpness that th...