New England Motor Co. v. B.F. Sturtevant Co.

• Decision Date: 04 December 1906
• Docket Number: 30.
• Citation: New England Motor Co. v. B.F. Sturtevant Co., 150 F. 131 (2nd Cir. 1906)
• Parties: NEW ENGLAND MOTOR CO. v. B. F. STURTEVANT CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

150 F. 131

NEW ENGLAND MOTOR CO. v. B. F. STURTEVANT CO.

No. 30.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

December 4, 1906

Benjamin Phillipps and E. P. Howe, for appellant.

C. V Edwards, for appellee.

Before LACOMBE, TOWNSEND, and COXE, Circuit Judges.

LACOMBE Circuit Judge.

The Burke patent states that the invention relates to electric motors or generators, and 'has particular reference to the frames thereof. ' It proceeds as follows:

'The object of the invention is to construct a machine in which the armature shall be concentrically placed in the magnetic field in perfectly-aligned bearings, which latter shall be permanent and not liable to displacement by use of the machine or other cause. In machines heretofore constructed much difficulty has been experienced by reason of the bearings becoming displaced with respect to the frame thereby shifting the armature out of its proper position in the field and affecting the alignment. This difficulty is usually encountered in reassembling the machine after the parts have been once separated and the bearings and armature removed. It is desirable that the armature should at all times be concentrically placed in the magnetic field, and that the bearings supporting the armature should at all times be in perfect alignment with each other. It is further desirable that the armature be capable of being removed from the machine without being taken out of its bearings. I propose to obviate the difficulties above mentioned, and at the same time secure the advantages named by providing a frame or cradle in which the armature shall be adapted to be mounted; the frame being arranged to be secured in and form a part of the frame of the machine.' The above excerpts will be more readily understood when it is appreciated that in prior machines of this type there were separate bearings for the two ends of the armature axle, each bearing (through the bracket in which it was located) being separately attached to the frame. In consequence more work was required to adjust them in assembling the machine in the shop, so as to fasten the bearings and other parts in proper position. It was sometimes necessary to take the machine apart, for cleaning, repairs, or other purposes and when reassembling was undertaken by persons, not as skillful mechanics as those who made it, there was a chance that the bearings might not be replaced precisely where they should be. The substitution of a single 'cradle' in which both bearings are located for two separate brackets, each carrying a bearing, is the fundamental improvement above referred to, which overcame, measurably at least, the difficulties enumerated. Referring to the drawings, of which Fig. 2 represents an end view of the machine, the specification proceeds:

(Image Omitted)

'3 represents the cradle or frame having bearings 4 and 5 (5 only is shown in this Fig. which is looked at end-on) in which the armature is adapted to be mounted. The bearings are preferably cast integrally with the cradle, but may be put on separately in any suitable manner. The bearings should be provided with renewable bearing boxes. The cradle may also be provided with other bearings-- such for instance as 6-- to support a counter-shaft to be used in connection with the armature-shaft through any suitable transmitting device. The form of the cradle is such that it will surround the frame of the machine as illustrated in Fig. 4 or will be adapted to be clamped between the parts 1 and 2 as illustrated * * * in Fig. 2. The latter form is the one which I prefer, and in this instance the cradle, or at least such parts of it as are clamped between the parts of the magnet-frame, should be of suitable magnetic conducting material, as such parts form part of the magnetic circuit.

'In order to facilitate the construction of the machine, I provide suitable faces for the cradle, against which the parts of the magnet-frame are adapted to be clamped. When the cradle is made to surround the magnet-frame as shown in Fig. 4, the frame may be provided with suitable supports (projecting from the sides of the frame). * * * It will be understood that the invention is not limited for use with any particular type of machine and may be used with a machine having its magnet-frame composed of one or more parts.

I therefore desire it to be understood that I do not limit myself to the precise construction and arrangement of parts herein shown. It will be seen that the parts of the magnet-frame may be reversed with relation to the cradle or bearing-frame-- that is, the part shown as the lower part in the drawings may be used as the upper part-- and the machine thus reversed can then be readily attached to the ceiling.'

The claims in controversy are:

'(1) In a motor or generator, the combination with the magnet-frame of the machine, of a cradle adapted to support the armature of the machine, and be supported by the magnet-frame, substantially as described.'

'(3) In a motor or generator, the combination with the magnet-frame, of a cradle having a plurality of permanently mounted bearings for the armature-shaft said cradle being clamped to and supported by said magnet-frame, substantially as described.'

The only defense which need be considered is anticipation alleged to be found in certain so-called Thomson-Houston motors running elevators in the city of Boston. The date of installation prior to Burke's date of invention is conceded, and one at least of them is still running. The machines with which Burke seems to have been especially concerned were small motors, such as are used for electric fans, ventilators, etc.; but, as seen above, he did not confine himself to any type, and is free to show infringement in any machine, however ponderous, which embodies his invention with such modifications only as ordinary shop-skill would be required to make in order properly to install a heavier machine than the one which patentee more particularly describes. A like rule must be applied in considering anticipating devices.

The following sketch represents the Thomson-Houston Motor:

(Image Omitted)

1 is the cradle which supports the armature in its bearings. 4, 4 4, 4 is one part or one-half of the magnet-frame wound with field coils, A, A. 5, 5, 5 is the other half or part of the same, wound with field coils B, B. Between these two parts of the magnet-frame is clamped the armature cradle by bolts, 6, 6, 7, 7, which may be compared with the bolts, x, x, y, y, of Fig. 2 of the patent. Referring to Fig. 2, it is apparent that, except for the purpose of locating it upon some base or support, the lower half of the magnet-frame (2) might be made precisely of the same shape as the upper half (1), and it would fulfill all the functions which are assigned to it. The devising of appropriate means to connect it with its support is within the range of common shop expedients, the drawing shows an extension downward below the dotted line, and terminating in feet (12, 12) adapted to rest on the floor or base, and which may be secured thereto if it be desirable to secure the machine in some particular location, instead of moving it from place to place. The combination shown in the patent would be as efficient, if there were no extension below the dotted line and no feet, and the lower part of the magnet-frame were bedded in a concrete base. No other support for the magnet-frame than the extended feet is shown, nor any further support for the cradle than the magnet-frame itself. Apparently the drawing contemplates a machine of such a size that good workmanship in installation would not require the supplemental aid of additional supports. The man who had to install the ponderous Thomson-Houston motor, however-- it weighs more than a ton-- had to provide much sturdier supports for such a mass of metal; and he accomplished it in this way. Instead of extending the ends of the lower-half of the magnet-frame downwards so as to form legs integral with the frame, he built up heavy metal posts, 8, 8, from a metal base, 9, and on those posts rested the ends of the lower half of the magnet-frame, cutting recesses in the tops of the posts so that the heads of bolts, 5, 5, could enter therein and the lower-half of the frame rest squarely on the posts. Apparently to distribute weight and to meet the strain of the heavy cradle where it projected beyond the...