Mead Morrison Mfg. Co. v. Exeter Mach Works

• Decision Date: 20 July 1914
• Docket Number: 122.
• Citation: 215 F. 731
• Parties: MEAD MORRISON MFG. CO. v. EXETER MACH. WORKS.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

215 F. 731

MEAD MORRISON MFG. CO. v. EXETER MACH. WORKS.

No. 122.

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.

July 20, 1914

Emery Booth, Janney & Varney, of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

E. G Siggers, of Washington, D.C., and A. L. Williams, of Wilkesbarre, Pa., for defendant.

WITMER District Judge.

In this suit, by bill in equity, the Mead Morrison Manufacturing Company charges the Exeter Machine Works with infringement of letters patent of the United States numbered 722,613, granted March 10, 1903, upon the application of Almon E. Norris filed May 3, 1902, and assigned to the complainant.

The invention relates to an improvement in hoisting apparatus and the particular act of infringement charged is the construction and installation, March, 1911, of a pair of superimposed engines in the tower of the Eastern Coal Company, located at the Dyer Street Wharf, at Providence, R.I. That the so-called infringing structure embodies the features and functions embraced within the terms of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 of the patent cannot be successfully disputed. The case rests chiefly upon the validity of the patent and the laches charged against the complainant in not faithfully and diligently asserting its alleged rights under the grant.

Regarding the nature of the invention the patentee says:

'This invention relates to hoisting apparatus, and especially to what are known as 'coal towers.' These towers as usually constructed are mounted upon a suitable elevated track and carry a boom, on which travels a carrier or trolley, a bucket or other hoisting device being suspended from the carrier. Usually the tower carries two engines, which are located in different places in the housing carried by the tower, and one of which operates the bucket and the other of which operates to move the carrier back and forth upon the track. ' Page 1, lines 11 to 23.

After thus setting forth the state of the art, the patentee discloses his contribution by further stating:

'In place of these two separately situated engines I substitute a single structure having a trolley operating engine and a hoisting engine.'

The novel features of this substituted structure the patentee continues are as follows:

'My engine mechanism comprises a horizontally arranged bucket hoisting engine, upon the frame of which is a carrier or trolley operating engine, and preferably one of said engines will be adapted to operate the driving gearing for the tower, and will also have connected to its crank shaft a winch head, by means of which the boom may be raised and lowered. By this arrangement of engine I economize room in the tower and, what is more important, am enabled to place all the levers of the engine mechanism within easy reach of a single operator. ' Page 1, lines 30 to 42.

'The hoisting engine and the trolley operating engine are capable of operation independently, by placing one on top of the other, as illustrated, provide a form of engine which has many advantages when employed in combination with a coal handling tower. ' Page 2, lines 17 and 23.

Having described his invention as consisting of an arrangement of the engines heretofore located separately in the housing of the tower by placing one on top of the other, capable of operation independently as before, the patentee makes his claim in form as typified by claim 2:

'In a hoisting apparatus, a carrier movable on a track, a hoisting bucket suspended from the carrier, a hoisting engine to operate the bucket, said engine comprising two cylinders, the pistons of which are operatively connected to opposite ends of a hoisting drum shaft, and a carrier operating engine supported on the frame of the hoisting engine and situated between the cylinders thereof.'

It is the contention of the complainant that the claims of the patent are combination claims, combining the usual elements of a coal hoisting plant with the novel features of engine construction. As exemplified from the defendant's structure, involving the placing of the trolley engine upon the hoisting engine, it does not effect a combination of elements. The two engines continue to operate successively or independently of each other, and there is no change necessitated by the adjustment either in the valves, foot, and hand levers or other equipment to control or operate them. Mr. Bramhall says that:

'In installing the defendant's superimposed engines in the tower of the Dyer Street Wharf the same levers were used, which had previously been employed in the separately situated engines in use there and that no change was made necessary by the exchange of engines.'

Furthermore the placing of the trolley engine upon the frame of the hoisting engine does not result in any different operations shifting the carrier or trolley along the track upon the boom, or in hoisting, opening, and closing the bucket suspended from the carrier. These operations are all the usual type whether performed by this superimposed engine or by the old type of engine arranged in separate parts of the tower. Referring to this subject, the defendant's expert very aptly says:

'But this location of the trolley engine did not in any way change the mode or character of the operation of the old combination of elements, which, as a combination presented absolutely nothing of novelty. As an aggregation, the structure did have the novelty of the trolley engine supported on and above the frame of the hoisting engine. But this novel location of the trolley engine in no way affected the operation of the complete combination, which operates just the same with the trolley engine on top of the hoisting engine as it does with it in front of the hoisting engine or at one side thereof.'

Comparing the operation of a set of direct acting engines located side by side, or in tandem, with the same engines...