Lothrop v. Robertson, 5300.

• Decision Date: 06 June 1932
• Docket Number: No. 5300.,5300.
• Citation: Lothrop v. Robertson, 61 F.2d 404, 61 App.D.C. 252 (D.C. Cir. 1932)
• Parties: LOTHROP et al. v. ROBERTSON, Commissioner of Patents.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

61 App. DC 252, 61 F.2d 404 (1932)

LOTHROP et al. v. ROBERTSON, Commissioner of Patents.

No. 5300.

Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.

Argued January 13, 1932.

Decided June 6, 1932.

Rehearing Denied October 8, 1932.

Samuel Herrick, of Washington, D. C., and James A. Carr, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellants.

T. A. Hostetler, Solicitor of Patent Office, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices.

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a decree in the Supreme Court of the District dismissing appellants' bill filed under the provisions of section 4915, R. S. (tit. 35, U. S. C. § 63 35 USCA § 63).

Two patent applications are involved: No. 488260, filed July 28, 1921, for a process for making conical rollers used in roller bearings; and No. 530643, filed January 20, 1922, for the roller produced by that process.

It is conceded that conical or taper roller bearings were not originated by appellant Lothrop. The claim is that he has devised a method by which rollers for such bearings may be made much more economically than by any previously known method.

The process consists in coining or forging a substantially cylindrical slug in a tapered die or dies to produce an unfinished roller of the size and taper desired, with depressions in the ends suitable for centering it in a grinding machine. The volume of the slug is approximately equal to the volume of the finished roller, a slight allowance being made for grinding. The slug is placed in the cylindrical bore of a lower die, and is swaged in the partly cylindrical and partly tapered bore of the vertically movable upper die by pressure exerted by the plunger of the lower die, whereby the slug is shortened endwise and spread laterally to conform to the surface of the upper die. It is thus converted into a blank, and at the same time a central depression is formed in the lower end of the blank by an accurately centered projection on the face of the plunger. The blank is then subjected to pressure in another die by means of a plunger die and a knockout piece, having a projection adapted to form a centering depression on the upper end of the roller. The taper of the bores of the die is the same as desired for the finished product, so that the roller is forged to the desired shape. It is then carburized and hardened.

In the thirteen claims of the process application, the operation is variously characterized as "coining," "forging," "upsetting," and "shortening and thickening" the slug. We reproduce counts 1, 2, 3, and 7 as illustrative of the group:

"1. The improvement in the art of making conical rollers, which consists in progressively coining a slug in a series of dies of which the last is of the size and taper desired for the roller.

"2. The process of making conical rollers which consists in coining a slug of substantially the same volume as the finished roller in a conical die or dies to form a green roller of approximately the size and shape desired for the finished roller and carburizing and hardening said green roller.

"3. The process of making conical rollers which consists in coining a slug in a conical die or dies to form a green roller of approximately the size and shape desired for the finished roller and with centering depressions in its opposite ends concentric with the axis thereof, carburizing and hardening said roller, mounting it on centering spindles entered into the end depressions thereof and grinding the surface thereof while thus centered."

"7. The process of making conical rollers for roller bearings which comprises shortening and thickening a cylindrical slug of substantially the same volume as the finished roller by pressure against the ends thereof while in a conical die of the size and taper of such roller."

From the decisions of the Patent Office tribunals, it appears that claims 1 and 2 of the application were formerly allowed and involved in interference No. 47230, Lothrop v. Bock. The operation characterized as "coining" in these two claims was then called "upsetting," and constituted counts 2 and 3 of the interference. Lothrop moved to dissolve the interference on the ground that Bock's operation was not "upsetting"; hence that he could not make the claims of the issue. The law examiner held that "upsetting" did not correctly describe the operation of either party, but that the actual operations of both parties were essentially the same. The law examiner then allowed a motion to amend by adding new counts, differing from the former counts in the use of the word "forging" instead...