Pope Mfg. Co. v. Clark

• Decision Date: 21 March 1891
• Citation: 46 F. 789
• Parties: POPE MANUF'G CO. OF CONNECTICUT v. CLARK.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

46 F. 789

POPE MANUF'G CO. OF CONNECTICUT v. CLARK.

United States Circuit Court, D. Maryland.

March 21, 1891

Syllabus by the Court

Claims 1 and 2 of patent No. 329,851, November 3, 1885, to Albert H Overman for improved pedals for velocipedes, held to be valid and to have been infringed.

Claims 8 and 9 of patent No. 301,245, July 1, 1884, to Emmit G Latta for a hollow wheel-rim, made of a single strip of sheet-metal, held to be void for want of patentable novelty.

William A. Redding and Edmund Wetmore, for complainant.

Thomas R. Clendinen, for respondent.

MORRIS J.

This bill of complaint charges the defendant with infringement of claims of six different patents, relating to velocipedes and bicycles. Three of these patents were withdrawn by amendments, and one was withdrawn at the hearing, leaving for consideration in this opinion the claims of two patents which are as follows, viz., claims 1 and 2 of patent No. 329,851, dated November 3, 1885, to Albert H. Overman; and claims 8 and 9 of patent No. 301,245, dated July 1, 1884, to Emmit G. Latta.

The Overman Patent, No. 329,851. The only defense as to claims 1 and 2 of the Overman patent No. 329,851 is the want of patentable novelty. The first and second claims of this patent are thus stated:

'(1) A pedal for velocipedes, having bars located upon opposite sides of a central working bearing, and provided with wide working faces, and arranged to turn to incline the upper or exposed faces towards each other, substantially as set forth.

'(2) A pedal for velocipedes, having rectangular bars located upon opposite sides of a central working bearing, and arranged to turn to incline their upper or exposed faces towards each other, substantially as set forth.'

In his specifications the patentee very fully states the nature and scope of his invention. He says:

'Heretofore pedals for velocipedes have been provided with a single turning polygonal bar, composed of an envelope of rubber inclosing a skeleton frame bearing at each end upon the spindle of the pedal. Pedals for velocipedes have also been provided with two essentially round, and sometimes fluted, bars of solid rubber located upon opposite sides of the working bearing of the pedals, and arranged to be turned, so that when one portion has become worn another may be exposed for wear. Pedals of the construction first mentioned are objectionable in that the single bar does not prevent the boot from slipping, except through friction, which does not procure a sufficient hold for safety. In this pedal also the frame of the bar forms the active or working bearing of the pedal and is necessarily made of metal which makes the bar heavy and expensive. Pedals of the type described as having two essentially round bars located upon opposite sides of their working bearings are also objectionable, for while the bars are engaged with the sole of the boot at separated points thereupon the area of contact upon an essentially round bar is necessarily small; and the surfaces in contact being in the same horizontal plane, the boot is prevented from slipping only by friction and this being insufficient to retain it in place it often slips. With the end in view of obviating the objections above stated incident to pedals as heretofore constructed, and of producing a pedal retaining the foot in place by other means than friction alone, and of durable and cheap construction, my invention consists in a pedal having bars located upon opposite sides of a central working bearing, and provided with wide working faces, and arranged to turn to incline their upper or exposed faces towards each other. By locating bars having flat bearing surfaces upon opposite sides of the working bearing of the pedal and arranging them to swivel upon their bearings, they will turn towards each other, and incline their upper or exposed bearing surfaces to meet the sole of the boot at points of contact therewith, and retain the foot in place, not only by the friction of the board flat bearing surfaces, but also by the inclination of the same in converging planes, as shown in Fig. 1 of the drawings, whereby ease to the foot and security against slipping are secured.

Any polygonal bar offering bearing surfaces of good width may be employed in my improved pedal. The rectangular shape herein shown is commended by its provision of four bearing surfaces and its compact form.'

The essential features claimed by the inventor are that there shall be broad flat bearing surfaces on opposite sides of the central working bearing, and that the bars shall swivel or turn on their own bearings, so that their surfaces shall always meet the sole of the boot, and conform to any changes in the curvature of the sole as it presses the pedal and follows its revolutions. If the round or fluted bars had been made to turn, the turning would have made them less efficient. If the flat bars had been made rigid, they would not have conformed at all to the curvatures of the sole. The Overman device is therefore distinguishable in principle from either of the preceding types of pedals. The device has proved to be of utility, and has gone largely into use. The defense of want of patentable novelty rests upon the state of the art as shown by a large number of patents put in evidence by the defendant. Among these are No. 30,369, to Williamson, and No. 143,732, to Thompson, for improvements in stirrups for equestrians. They show bars both round and polygonal, but not with broad surfaces, and which revolve; but they do not, and are not intended to present inclined surfaces to the curve of the sole, their design being merely in case of accident to allow the foot of the rider to quickly and easily slip from the stirrup. I can see no suggestion or idea of analogous use which could be obtained from these stirrup patents.

The patent of Laubach, No. 86,235, is for a single bar, turning upon the spindle of the pedal. The patents to Price, No. 243,346, and to White, No. 269,609, show the round rubber bars confined by rods, so as not to turn, and they are of the type disclaimed by Overman in his specifications. The patent to Warner, No. 282,938, shows flat rubber bars rigidly fixed in the pedal, and designed for use in bicycles where an entire revolution of the pedal is not required. The patent to Hadley, No. 313,323, also shows flat rubber bars rigidly fastened to the pedal. The English patent to Rae, No. 979, of 1878, provides for preventing the foot from slipping, and affording some elasticity, by having the rubber bars made corrugated, or with conical shaped projections, but suggests nothing like the independently rocking bars, adjusting themselves to the curvatures of the foot. The English patent to Bown, No. 369, of 1879, shows flat bars on opposite sides of the treadle, but rigidly fixed, and with no adaptability to the foot except from the elasticity of the rubber.

Nothing has been adduced by the defendant in this case to show that the state of the art was other than is frankly set forth in the specifications of the Overman patent, and I think that it appears that Overman made a distinct step in the adaptation of pedals to the requirements of improved bicycles. The utility is not denied, and the difference, although slight, appears to be important, and one of principle, not attainable by mere mechanical improvement. That it required the exercise of invention, and is patentable, I think has been successfully maintained.

The complainant...