NATIONAL MACHINERY CO. v. WATERBURY FARREL FDRY. CO.

• Decision Date: 22 June 1963
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 7094.
• Citation: NATIONAL MACHINERY CO. v. WATERBURY FARREL FDRY. CO., 221 F.Supp. 77 (D. Conn. 1963)
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: The NATIONAL MACHINERY COMPANY v. The WATERBURY FARREL FOUNDRY & MACHINE COMPANY, Textron, Inc.

221 F. Supp. 77

The NATIONAL MACHINERY COMPANY v.The WATERBURY FARREL FOUNDRY & MACHINE COMPANY, Textron, Inc.

Civ. No. 7094.

United States District Court D. Connecticut.

June 22, 1963.

H. F. McNenny, D. W. Farrington, Richey, McNenny & Farrington, Cleveland, Ohio, F. E. Callahan, Wiggin & Dana, New Haven, Conn., for plaintiff.

Alan E. Steele, Middletown, Conn., Spencer, Rockwell & Bartholow, New Haven, Conn., Willis H. Taylor, Jr., John C. Oram, Jr., Pennie, Edmonds, Morton, Taylor & Adams, New York City, for defendants.

BLUMENFELD, District Judge.

This case came on regularly for trial before the court, without jury; the parties appeared by their respective attorneys of record; and the court, having heard the evidence and argument of counsel, and having considered the briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted by counsel, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

1.The plaintiff is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Tiffin, Ohio.

2.The defendantWaterbury Farrel Foundry & Machine Company, a Connecticut corporation with its principal place of business in Waterbury, Connecticut, is the original defendant in this action.Its assets were acquired by Textron, Inc., a Rhode Island corporation, which is continuing the business under the name and style of Waterbury Farrel Foundry & Machine Company Division of Textron at Chesire, Connecticut.It is stipulated that Textron, Inc. has assumed all liability, if any, which the original defendant may have to the plaintiff in this action.

3.The matter in suit involves more than $10,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.

4.The two patents in suit issued on the same day, February 20, 1951 to The National Machinery Company as assignee of the application of J. H. Friedman, the inventor.

5.PatentNo. 2,542,023 was granted for a "Method of Making Nuts" on an application filed August 3, 1944.

6.PatentNo. 2,542,864 was granted for a "Machine for Making Nuts" on an application filed April 19, 1946.It was issued to the plaintiff as a continuation in part of the application for the Method Patent '023.

7.The subject matter of the two patents in suit relate to a method and a machine for making nuts of standard configuration and sizes from cold steel wire stock by cold forging or "heading" with a plurality of dies and punches in a "cold header" machine having a transfer mechanism which enables the blanks from which the nuts are formed to be turned over between the successive operations performed by the several dies and punches.

The Method Patent

8.The '023 patent teaches a method for making hexagonal nuts out of cold wire.

9.First a length of wire somewhat longer than the thickness of the finished nut is cut or sheared off.This blank is of the required length and thickness to provide the metal content of the finished nut plus the waste slug which is punched out of the center at the final stage.The diameter of the wire is substantially equal to the width of the finished nuts across the flats (as distinguished from corner to corner).

10.It is evident to anyone in the art that wire of a diameter as large as can be readily inserted in the die minimizes the amount of deformation necessary to fill out the hexagonal corners of the sides of the die.

11.It is also evident to anyone in the art that as stations are added in these machines, the work done at each station decreases.

12.The blank is subjected to 5 similar successive operations called "stages" in each of which the blank is placed in a die and subjected to pressure from a co-operating punch so that it is progressively deformed until at the final stage a small slug of waste metal is punched out of the center leaving a nut ready for tapping.

13.In brief, these stages are:

(1) squaring up the ends of the cut off blank in the 1st die;

(2) pressing the blank into rough hexagonal shape in the 2nd die;

(3) dishing and doming the blank in the 3rd die;

(4) inverting the blank and flattening the end faces in the 4th die; and

(5) punching out the central slug.

14.After each stage, the blank is carried from one station to the next by an automatic transfer mechanism inverting the blank between stations wherever that is deemed desirable.

15.Appropriate variation in the shape of the die and the head of the knockout punch at the annular end at the 4th stage will result in a finished nut that is washer-faced, flat-faced or chamfered.

16.At this stage, the bottom of the die may be flat for a flat-faced nut.It may have a circular recess in the central area of the flat bottom for a washer-faced nut (See Fig. 5a) or a portion of the circumference may be dished to form a double chamfer nut.

17.The end product of both the method and the machine for employing it is a nut which, except for tapping, is finished in conformity to critical specifications defined and illustrated in the "Society of Automotive Engineers Standards" and the "Bolt, Nut and Rivet Standards of the American Institute of Bolt, Nut and Rivet Manufacturers."

18.The final nut thus produced is not new in shape, material, dimensions, or other characteristics.

19.All claims of the method patent are in suit on the defendant's counterclaims for invalidity.The defendant has designated claims 5, 16 and 18 as being representative thereof.

20.The plaintiff relies on claims 8 to 14 inclusive, 17 to 19 inclusive, and 21 to 28 inclusive, and has designated claims 19, 25 and 27 as being representative thereof.

"19.The method of making nuts and the like comprising upsetting stock to form a blank having a rough polygonal outline, confining said blank in a polygonal die opening, upsetting said blank into concavo-convex form so as to force the metal of said blank radially outward against the polygonal wall of said die adjacent the face of said blank which becomes convex, flattening said blank in a polygonal die opening to force the metal of said blank radially outward against the polygonal wall of said die adjacent the opposite face of said blank, and thereafter punching an axial hole through said blank."

21.The remaining claims add nothing which is significant.

22.Somewhat less verbosely stated, the method claims the step of dishing or doming the partially formed hexagonal blanks into concavo-convex form, so as to force the metal of the blank radially outward against the die wall adjacent the convex face of the blank.The next step in claim 19 calls for flattening the blank in the die to force the metal of the blank adjacent the opposite (concave) face radially outward against the die wall.In claim 25, the blank is removed and turned over between the 1st step (stage 3) and the 2nd step (stage 4).In claim 27, the description of the shape of the bottom of the die to form a flat-faced nut is included as additional matter.

23.At the 5th or final stage, only the slug in the center is punched out without affecting the exterior surfaces of the sides or ends of the nut.

24.The punch and die to form the blank into the concavo-convex form are described in claims 7 and 16 as "a polygonal die having a bottom wall disposed at an obtuse angle to its side walls"(7); and "a punch having a face portion substantially complemental to said bottom wall"(16).

25.Of the 31 claims, 18 attribute the force which causes the metal of the blank to fill out the corners of the die at the 3rd and 4th stages to the "bending" of the blank into the concavo-convex form and to the subsequent "flattening" of the blank.The last 5 claims speak of "flowing the metal" but at only the annular flat portion and the corners formed by the annular flat portion and the polygonal side walls of the die.The remaining 9 claims (including claim 5 which the defendant has designated as representative) state that the blank is shaped "into concavo-convex form so as to force the metal against the polygonal wall of said die adjacent the convex face of the blank."

26.Whatever change in the shape of the blank occurs at the 3rd and 4th stages results from plastic deformation attributable only to the flow of the metal within the blank.

27.The blank does not bend into a concavo-convex shape, nor does it bend back into a flattened shape.

28.The way in which the external configuration of the initial blank is changed into that of a nut is by plastic flow of the metal, outward and downward into the corners of the die.

29.The concavo-convex form does not in itself contribute to the plastic flow.

30.In the first of the 2 steps in the preferred embodiment in the method patent where the blank is deformed into concavo-convex shape, there is a nose on the punch which "dishes" the top face of the blank when it is forced against it by pressure.

31.As the punch is forced into the blank, there is a very substantial flow of metal into the unconfined areas and, as the punch advances, the metal in front of the punch flows outward into the corners of the die, forward into contact with the concave bottom of the die, and a slight amount flows upward until checked by the shoulders of the punch.

32.In addition to the projecting nose on the punch, Fig. 4 accompanying the plaintiff's patent also illustrates a projecting nose on the head of the knockout pin which protrudes through the center of the annular end (bottom wall) of the die.This indents the center of the convex face of the blank as it is formed in the 3rd station.

33.This nose on the knockout pin assists the radial flow of metal in the blank to fill out the corners between the flat hexagonal sides of the die.

34.Neither the nose projection on the head of the knockout pin nor the radial flow of metal it produces are included in the claims of the patent.

Prior Method Patents

35.A prior method PatentNo. 1,228,260 issued to Swenson May 29, 1917 for "The Process of Making Pressed Steel Nuts" was not cited as a reference and was not considered by the Patent Office during the...