United Shoe Machinery Corporation v. EH Ferree Co.

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
• Writing for the Court: MANTON, L. HAND, and SWAN, Circuit
• Citation: United Shoe Machinery Corporation v. EH Ferree Co., 64 F.2d 101 (2nd Cir. 1933)
• Decision Date: 03 April 1933
• Docket Number: No. 321.,321.
• Parties: UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORPORATION v. E. H. FERREE CO. et al.

64 F.2d 101 (1933)

UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORPORATION v. E. H. FERREE CO. et al.

No. 321.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 3, 1933.

Charles Neave, of New York City, and Hector M. Holmes, of Boston, Mass., for appellant.

Donald Campbell, of New York City, and Edward O. Proctor, of Boston, Mass., for appellees.

Before MANTON, L. HAND, and SWAN, Circuit Judges.

MANTON, Circuit Judge.

The appellant sues on claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the Horgan patent, No. 1,629,870, for an improvement on a clicking machine used in the manufacture of shoe uppers. This machine is used for cutting leather or a plurality of plies of fabric. It has a die bed to support the stock and a laterally swinging hammer arm, supported at one end on a post and manually movable into position over a steel cutting die placed on the stock. When the operator has swung the arm into position over the die, he operates a tripping mechanism as a result of which the hammer arm is driven onto the steel die to force it through the work, and it is then raised to its initial position. At the conclusion of the stroke, the operator swings the arm back, out of the way, so as to have unobstructed access to the work for the proper placing of the die for the next cut. These machines are operated by skilled workmen. The arm is a ram or hammer arm, and strikes the steel die with great force. The shaft is operated at the speed of 420 r. p. m. and it takes one-seventh of a second for the arm to reciprocate. The force which must be exerted by the arm in striking the steel die and forcing it through the work is rated from 4½ to 9 tons or more. The arm is a large massive member necessarily having great rigidity, strength, hardness, and toughness. The problem which this inventor sought to overcome was to lighten the weight of the cast-iron hammer. Appellant's hammer arm weighed 216 pounds. The appellee's arm weighed 519 pounds. This great weight was regarded as advantageous for cutting. Both appellant and appellee are manufacturers of this type of machinery and are competitors. They both regarded heavy weight as desirable, and it occurred to no one to change to a relatively light aluminum alloy until Horgan suggested it in his application filed August 6, 1924, and on which he was granted a patent May 24, 1927. This great weight of heavy cast-iron arm while in operation is swung back and forth repeatedly during the working day. This was very tiresome and burdensome to the operator. It is estimated that it was repeated 4,000 times a day. Men in the art were at work endeavoring to overcome this burdensome task. The suggestion made by Horgan that the material might be changed was discouraged. But he experimented, casting his aluminum alloy arm on the model of a standard cast iron arm of the appellant. It was given a test and worked satisfactorily and successfully. It was tried out on the appellant's machines, and now has been substituted on approximately 7,400 arms of its machines which are leased to shoe manufacturers. The appellee then followed and substituted the aluminum arm on its machines. The two-piece arm now weighs about 74 pounds, and the bolts by which it is secured to the cap portion of the arm weigh 32 pounds. The center of gravity was placed closer to the spindle in the two-piece arm sometimes used in place of the one-piece arm. It requires 13 foot pounds of energy to swing through a 90° path the 216 pounds cast-iron arm of the appellant, 10 foot pounds to swing the prior 168 pound arm, and less than 6 pounds of energy to give a corresponding swing to the one-piece or the two-piece aluminum arm. The appellee's cast-iron arm weighing 519 pounds was replaced by an arm weighing only 173 pounds. The amount of energy necessary to swing these arms does not appear. The record fully establishes an improvement that workmen experienced by this change, and the quality of the work performed is as good.

The claims provide for a presser member for clicking machines "composed of an aluminum alloy having a high aluminum content." They also describe a clicking machine fully, and call for an arm of aluminum alloy having certain characteristics such as hardness approximating that of iron (claim 1) or of aluminum having a high aluminum content and a corresponding low density (claims 2 and 5). The claims are not limited to aluminum alloy arms of particular design of structural strength, and provide for one-piece as well as two-piece arms.

Prior to this invention, the uses of aluminum alloys and their qualities were known, but there is nothing disclosed which taught the use of aluminum alloy for a clicker arm or for an analogous purpose. It was thought impracticable and impossible of accomplishment when the inventor undertook to put his idea into practice, but it ended the use of the cast-iron arm because of the benefits...