Windle v. Parks & Woolson Mach. Co.
Decision Date | 06 December 1904 |
Docket Number | 85. |
Citation | 134 F. 381 |
Parties | WINDLE V. PARKS & WOOLSON MACH. CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Geo. N Goddard, for appellant.
Nathan Heard, for appellee.
Before LACOMBE, TOWNSEND, and COXE, Circuit Judges.
The specification states that 'cloth is now measured by contact with a rotating cylinder, which latter draws the cloth at the surface speed of the cylinder, each rotation of the cylinder being recorded. ' The proof shows that besides the machines in which the cloth passed over the cylinder and was drawn by it, there were machines in which the measuring cylinder rested on the cloth, and was revolved by the forward movement of the same. The latter may, for convenience, be called 'undershot wheels.' It is self-evident, and the record of earlier devices shows, that, while a narrow wheel might be used as an undershot one, efficient working would require a wheel broad enough to support the full width of the cloth when the latter passes over the wheel. Sometimes the measuring surfaces of these cylinders were unbroken, and sometimes they were composed of a succession of strips parallel with the axis of rotation, and close enough together to properly sustain the cloth. The specification proceeds:
The record shows that in the earlier art an increase in the circumference of the rotating cylinder was accomplished by winding more or less cloth, or the like, around the periphery of the cylinder. It is stated in appellant's brief that increase in the circumference of the cylinder by providing some form of expanding device is 'disclosed in patents long since expired,' but no such patents are referred to, except the Hoyer patent, which has no cylinder, and we have not been able to find any in the record. The proof shows that the actual degree of expansion required is extremely slight; amounting, at most, to not more than one-eighth to one-fourth of an inch on a drum of two yards circumference.
The specification proceeds:
These bars are parallel to the axis of the cylinder, and together make up its circumference-- a method of construction found in the earlier art '(Watson patent). 'The spiders are composed each of a metallic ring, D, split or separated as at D', and connected by spokes, d2, with a hub, dx, which is secured in suitable manner to the shaft, C, the ends of the rings having heels, d3, attached to or forming a part of them; said heels being separate pieces attached by screws, 18; the lower ends of the heels being normally drawn toward each other by a contracting device, herein represented as composed of a bolt, b, extended through them, and provided with two springs, each spring acting against a heel. Each hub has a spoke having a suitable bearing for a shaft, 5; said shaft having mounted upon it, at suitable intervals, pins or projections; said shaft and pins or projections constituting an expanding device, and being located one end of the pin in the slot between the ends of the ring, D, referred to, the other end of the pin resting between the heels, d3. The partial rotation of the expanding device causes the pins or projections thereof to act one against one end of the ring, the other against the heel connected to the other end of the ring, thus expanding the ring so that the circumference of the cylinder composed of the lags or rings (sic., should be lags or bars) is thereby enlarged more or less; that depending upon the extent to which the rod, 5, is rocked or turned.'
Means for turning the expanding device are then described,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Eclipse Mach. Co. v. JH Specialty Mfg. Co.
...1 F. 138, 139; Frazer v. Gates & Scoville Iron Works (C. C.) 22 F. 439, 442; Gunn v. Savage (C. C.) 30 F. 366, 369; Windle v. Parks & Woolson Mach. Co. (C. C. A.) 134 F. 381. The reliance being on the drawings, and the specification containing no suggestion of the construction of the spring......
-
Permutit Co v. Graver Corporation
...Tinker v. Wilber Eureka Mower & Reaper Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 1 F. 138, 139; Gunn v. Savage (C. C.) 30 F. 366, 369; Windle v. Parks & Woolson Machine Co. (C. C. A.) 134 F. 381, 384, 385. 10 Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U. S. 568, 573, 24 L. Ed. 235; Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516, 541, 20 L. Ed. 33. ......
-
Karl Kiefer Mach Co. v. Heyman
... ... the sufficiency of description are Gunn v. Savage ... (C.C.) 30 F. 366; Windle v. Parks & Woolson M ... Co., 134 F. 381, 67 C.C.A. 363; Herman v. Youngstown ... Car Mfg ... ...
-
Davis-Bournonville Co. v. Alexander Milburn Co.
... ... Gunn v. Savage (C.C.) 30 F. 366; Windle v. Parks ... & Woolson Mach. Co., 134 F. 381, 67 C.C.A. 363; ... ...