National Lock Washer Co. v. George K. Garrett Co., 6672.

• Decision Date: 22 July 1938
• Docket Number: No. 6672.,6672.
• Citation: 98 F.2d 643
• Parties: NATIONAL LOCK WASHER CO. v. GEORGE K. GARRETT CO., Inc.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

98 F.2d 643 (1938)

NATIONAL LOCK WASHER CO. v. GEORGE K. GARRETT CO., Inc.

No. 6672.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

July 22, 1938.

William G. Mahaffy and Herbert L. Cohen, both of Wilmington, Del. (Thomas G. Haight, of Jersey City, N. J., and George F. Scull and H. H. Hamilton, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Paul & Paul, of Philadelphia, Pa. (Henry N. Paul, Henry N. Paul, Jr., and John H. Austin, all of Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel), for appellee.

Before BUFFINGTON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and DICKINSON, District Judge.

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

This case concerns split ring washers used to prevent the loosening of nuts caused by jarring or shaking of the structures on which they are used. A familiar and long used type of split ring was the nut lock to hold in place the two angle bars located on the sides of abutting rails.

The British patent No. 1230, to Grover, for a split ring, showed a device for preventing the nut from loosening by turning up the ends of the split ring. He thus describes his device:

"My invention consists in constructing washers of metal rings, by preference of tempered steel, which washers are cut completely through at one point, each of the two severed portions being respectively deflected or bent in opposite directions from the plane of the washer. Each severed portion forms a sharp cutting edge, which, on the nut being screwed up, bears hard respectively against the base or fish plate, and against the under surface of the nut, while the washer formed as above constitutes a spring which, as the nut is screwed up, is compressed, and thus causes the projecting edges to press with increasing force. The said cut ends are turned up in the contrary direction to that of the thread of the bolt on which the washer is to be employed, so that the washer will permit of the screwing up of the nut, but will resist its unscrewing by means of the said edges tending to bite into the surface of the nut and the base.

* * * * * *

"Fig. 4 shows the nut B1 screwed home so as to compress the washer between it and the base, fish plate, or other object C to which the bolt, nut, and washer are applied. In attempting to turn the nut back so as to unscrew it the spring of the washer causes the edges a3 and a2 to bite into the under side of the nut B1 and upper surface of the base C, thus offering a great resistance to the unscrewing of the nut."

Stating wherein invention lay, Grover says:

"Having thus described the nature of my invention, and in what manner the same is to be performed, I claim, the use of spring washers so divided by a single cut across one part of their periphery, and bent on each side of the cut as to present cutting edges to resist the unscrewing of the nuts to which they are applied, substantially as herein described."

Manifestly his invention, which we assume went into use, concerned the holding in place of the nut after the nut lock was in place and had nothing to do with means for putting his nut lock in place. In other words, when his nut lock was to be used, it was put in place and by screwing tight its turned up ends bit into the opposing surfaces.

In the Garrett device shown in patent No. 1,560,228, granted November 3, 1925 to the Vice President of the defendant company for a "method of and Apparatus for Making Lock Washers," it will be seen that the washers made thereunder, embodied in a modified form the "biting in" principle of Grover's device. In that regard Garrett's patent says: "My invention relates to a novel method of and apparatus for automatically and expeditiously making lock washers, wherein the bar from which the washers are made is serrated or roughened on both sides simultaneously during its propulsion towards forming or coiling devices * * * where the coils are automatically cut to produce the finished washer which is offset at its juxtaposed ends, and provided with serrations on the opposite surfaces thereof."

As to the diameter of the coils, Garrett states his machine is "adjusted so as to form each convolution of said coil slightly less than a full revolution, thereby causing the cutter to sever convolution of coil with the ends thereof spaced apart with a slight clearance when the same are brought into alignment."

We assume the machine and process went into use and when once set in place, prevented the nut from torsional turning by its "serrations" on the opposite surface of the split ring in the same way Grover did by his ring ends turned up in the contrary direction to the thread of the bolt, "which will resist the unscrewing by means of said edges tending to bite into the surfaces of the nut and the base."

But neither of the split rings shown by these two patents mentioned was addressed to or helped solve a difficulty that arose in a new art, namely, the movable platform used in the production of automobiles, where some part of the construction of automobiles was done by men at different short stopping stages. This staged work on automobiles came into use during the World War. In that regard the testimony of Gempler, in charge of motor assembly — and his testimony is uncontradicted — is:

"Originally motors were assembled by bench methods. That is, each individual cylinder block was taken and set up on a bench and then each part, as it came along, was assembled in the proper rotation: First, the crank shaft and valves and then the cam shaft and so on, pistons and connecting rods, until finally the complete motor was assembled. At the present time such assemblies are carried on by what are called power conveyors. Mr. Ford was among the first to initiate the power conveyor.

"It came into use in the Ford plant approximately along in 1918, if he remembers correctly. It might be 1917 or 1918. It was during the duration of the war. He could not give the exact date as to that."

But when this power conveyor system was used, a new difficulty developed, namely, the tangling of one split ring with another. Gempler testified:

"There was considerable trouble as to tangling of such washers, in fact that was one of his main kicks, because it took so many men to untangle them."

Another witness, Radford, was in charge of complaints from the factory of his employer, the Reo Motor Company. His testimony was that his company introduced the moving assembly time practice some time during the World War. In that regard his...