Royer v. Schultz Belting Co
| Decision Date | 05 May 1890 |
| Parties | ROYER v. SCHULTZ BELTING CO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
M. A. Wheaton, for plaintiff in error.
Chester H. Krum and Wilmarth H. Thurston, for defendant in error.
This is an action at law, brought in the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Missouri, by Herman Royer against the Schultz Belting Company, a Missouri corporation, for the infringement of letters patent No. 77,920, granted May 12, 1868, to Herman Royer and Louis Royer, as inventors, for 'an improved machine for treating raw hide.' The patent expired on May 12, 1885, and this suit was brought on the 16th of November, 1885. The specification, claims, and drawings are as follows 'The nature of our invention is to provide an improved machine for converting raw hides into leather, of that class which is used for belting, lacings, and other purposes, where it is necessary to preserve the native strength and toughness without destroying or impairing the natural fibers or grain of the leather.
In order to accomplish our object, we employ a machine mounted on a suitable frame, having a vertical slotted shaft, to which is attached, at its base, a beveled wheel between two beveled pinions, upon a horizontal shaft. Around the vertical shaft is placed a row of vertical pins or rollers, held in place by upper and lower rings, one of which is firmly bolted to the frame. An iron weight or press is employed for crowding the coil of hide down after it has received the forward and back action around the shaft.
To more fully illustrate and describe our invention, reference is had to the accompanying drawings, of which figure 1 is a horizontal section through A B; figure 2, a side sectional elevation, showing central shaft; figure 3, a side sectional elevation; figure 4, a horizontal section, showing the hide around the shaft in the circle of pins.
A represents the frame, of any suitable materials, up through which the vertical shaft, B, passes, having a slot, b', through which the end of the hide is placed, where it is held in place by the set-screws, b b b b. C C C are vertical pins or rollers set in the rings, D and d', the lower one, or d', being firmly attached to the frame by bolts, c c. A beveled wheel, E, is attached to the vertical shaft, B, which is actuated by the beveled pinions, F F, placedo n the horizontal driving-shaft, G. This shaft has a pulley, H, for driving the machine. An iron weight, I, having an opening through its center for the vertical shaft, and vertical grooves, i i, in it to prevent its turning, is placed upon the inside of the pins or rollers, and, by pressing upon this weight, the hide is compressed edgewise, after the forward and backward stretching or pressing is performed lengthwise. The operation of our machine is as follows: The end of the raw hide, after it has been deprived of the hair, is introduced into the slot, B', and the setscrews, b b b, turned against it, when motion is imparted to the machine, and the hide is wound tightly around the vertical shaft. When this is accomplished, and sufficient time has elapsed, the shaft is slowly reversed by throwing the other pinion into gear, when the
hide commences to uncoil, or doubling back from the shaft, which, with the folding back, and pressing against the pins or rollers, produces the desired result of stretching in one way, compressing, corrugating, or roughing in the opposite direction, when the weight, I, is placed upon the top of the hide, and is pressed downward, which, in a measure, compensates for the stretching lengthwise. The hide so operated upon is then treated with oil and tallow in the usual way. By thus treating the hide in our machine, the leather is rendered very tough, and the fibers or grain are not injured, but imparts to it a rough, corrugated, and seamy appearance, making it more strong and lasting for the purpose designed than by any other machine or process. Having thus described our invention, what we claim and desire to secure by letters patent is: (1) The vertical shaft, B, with a slot, B', and set-screws, b b b, said shaft having a forward and back motion, substantially as and for the purpose described. (2) The pins or rollers, C C C, set in the rings, D and D', together with the grooved weight, I, substantially as and for the purposes described.'
The defendant set up, in answer to the petition, that the machine was not the joint invention of the patentees; that it was in public use by one of the patentees for more than two years before the patent was applied for; and that it was not new, giving references on the question of novelty. The answer also denied every allegation in the petition. There was a reply, putting in issue the new matter in the answer. The case was tried by a jury. The bill of exceptions shows that, after testimony had been put in by the plaintiff on the question of infringement, the defendant demurred to the evidence introduced by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc.
...determined that the omission of the element did not substantially affect the invention as a whole. In Royer v. Schultz Belting Co., 135 U.S. 319, 10 S.Ct. 833, 34 L.Ed. 214 (1890) the patented device was a vertical cylindrical crib with a slotted rotating shaft running its length. The claim......
-
Hilton Davis Chemical Co. v. Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc.
...of the doctrine. See Graver Tank, 339 U.S. at 613-14, 70 S.Ct. at 859 (Black, J., dissenting). Royer v. Schultz Belting Co., 135 U.S. 319, 325, 10 S.Ct. 833, 835, 34 L.Ed. 214 (1890); Tyler v. Boston, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 327, 330-31, 19 L.Ed. 93 (1869). The Supreme Court explained that the do......
-
Sun Studs, Inc. v. ATA Equipment Leasing, Inc.
...rehearing). The place of a particular invention in this spectrum depends on all the circumstances, Royer v. Schultz Belting Co., 135 U.S. 319, 325, 10 S.Ct. 833, 835, 34 L.Ed. 214 (1890), and is decided as a factual matter, SRI Int'l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of America, 775 F.2d 1107, 1124......
-
United Gas Public Service Co v. State of Texas
...Spalding, 13 Wall. 453, 455, 20 L.Ed. 515; Keyes v. Grant, 118 U.S. 25, 36, 37, 6 S.Ct. 950, 30 L.Ed. 54; Royer v. Schultz Belting Co., 135 U.S. 319, 325, 10 S.Ct. 833, 34 L.Ed. 214; Coupe v. Royer, 155 U.S. 565, 578, 579, 15 S.Ct. 199, 39 L.Ed. 263. Most difficult questions of fact in prot......