National Mach. Co. v. Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co.
Decision Date | 11 January 1896 |
Citation | 72 F. 185 |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
Parties | NATIONAL MACH. CO. v. WHEELER & WILSON MANUF'G CO. |
Edwin H. Brown and James C. Chapin, for complainant.
Livingston Gifford and James H. Lange, for defendant.
At this final hearing upon a bill in equity, complainant prays for an injunction and accounting, alleging infringement of letters patent No. 447,791, granted March 10, 1891, to James B Osterhout, assignor to complainant. The record in this very complicated case has the refreshing merit of exclusion of irrelevant matter, and inclusion of all necessary evidence. The questions at issue have been exhaustively presented in admirable briefs, and by lucid and thorough oral arguments.
The patented device is for an improvement in machines for cutting and stitching buttonholes. The specification states that:
'One general object of this invention is to provide buttonhole sewing machines with practically successful cutting mechanisms, which shall automatically cut a buttonhole only when the machine is stitching at a predetermined portion part, or point in the periphery of the buttonhole.'
The patent covers a novel machine, comprising patentable improvements upon previously existing devices, whereby new and useful results were produced. The defense is denial of infringement. Prior to the invention embodied in the patent in suit, and in certain patents relied upon by defendant,-- notably, that to Egge in 1885,-- no practical, automatic buttonhole attachments for sewing machines had been devised which would both stitch and cut the buttonhole automatically. The problem presented was to provide a cutter which should not only automatically cut by a single stroke, at the proper time and in the proper place, but should be prevented from thereafter continuing the cutting operation. Defendant admits that Osterhout so far solved this problem by an inventive act, that his device was capable of practical operation in the hands of an expert operator. And defendant further admits that the patents upon which it relies, and under which it manufactures, depend for their operation upon a finger or pin on a feed wheel such as is found in complainant's patent. But they deny infringement, on the ground that this finder was well known in the prior art; that the claims in suit do not cover it, except in combination with other elements not used by defendant; and, further, because defendant's machine shows invention, by the solution of the problem presented, upon a different principle, producing the same result in a different way. The construction of defendant's machine is practically identical with that covered by patent No. 438,655, granted October 21, 1890, to Tebbets & Doggett. Defendant claims that the Osterhout patent is for an improvement upon the type of cutters known as 'step by step cutters,' in which a knife is operated at each alternate descent of the needle, but that the Tebbetts & Doggett patent is for an independent, single-plunger cutter, which can operate only once in any event. Defendant further claims that patent No. 345,419, granted to Frederick Egge July 13, 1886, shows such a solution of the problem presented as deprives Osterhout of any claim to any device or construction, except the specific construction described and claimed in his patent. This subject will be discussed later.
Buttonhole machines of the class in question comprise a stitch-forming mechanism, a work-moving mechanism, and a cutting mechanism. This litigation is concerned with the latter mechanism only. In this is included a cutter, a cutter carrier moving relatively to the plane of the work, a depressor to force the cutter through the fabric, and a cutter controller to cause the engagement of the cutter carrier and depressor. The claims alleged to have been infringed are the following:
'(7) In a buttonhole sewing machine, the combination, with a stitch-forming mechanism, a work clamp, and mechanism for operating the work clamp, of a depressor, operated by the actuating mechanism of the sewing machine; a work cutter; its carrier, means to elevate the cutter carrier, and means to support it when elevated and disconnected from said depressor; a cutter controller connected to and moving with the mechanism operating the work clamp; and connections between the said cutter controller, cutter carrier, and depressor, whereby the cutter carrier is temporarily connected with and depressed by the said depressor, and is thereupon elevated and disconnected from the depressor,--substantially as described.' '(15) In a buttonhole sewing machine, the combination, with a stitch-forming mechanism, a work clamp, and mechanism for operating the work clamp, of a cutter carrier, normally elevated, and an attached cutter of suitable length to cut a buttonhole at one insertion, a depressor operated by actuating mechanism of the sewing machine, a cutter controller connected to and moving with the mechanism for operating the work clamp; and connections between the said cutter controller, cutter carrier, and depressor, the same being constructed and arranged so as to cause the cutter carrier and cutter to be depressed by the said depressor to cut a buttonhole when the sewing machine is stitching at or near one and part of one side of the buttonhole,-- substantially as set forth.' '(28) The combination, with a buttonhole sewing machine, of a cutter, a cutter carrier, a cam from which motion is transmitted to the cutter carrier to depress the cutter, and mechanism whereby the depression of the cutter from the cam will be produced but once, and after the stitching of the greater part of the buttonhole, substantially as specified.'
The invention claimed in this patent consists of a cutter normally elevated, and out of engagement with the other parts of said machine, but which may be so connected with the work-moving and feeding mechanism that, at the appropriate time in the stitching of the buttonhole, it is caused to be positively and unyieldingly operated by the needle-actuating mechanism of the machine, so as to cut the buttonhole, and immediately thereupon to be again disengaged, and return to its normal position. In the stitch-forming mechanism of this class of machines, the needle does not move over the cloth but...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ingersoll v. Delaware & Hudson Co.
...153 U. S. 120, 14 S. Ct. 772, 38 L. Ed. 657; Hillard v. Remington Typewriter Co. (C. C. A.) 186 F. 334; National Machine Co. v. Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 72 F. 185. We conclude that the appellant's first and second forms of its booster are operated directly under the control of its ......