Wright & Colton Wire-Cloth Co. v. Clinton Wire-Cloth Co.

• Decision Date: 10 May 1895
• Docket Number: 125.
• Citation: 67 F. 790
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
• Parties: WRIGHT & COLTON WIRE-CLOTH CO. v. CLINTON WIRE-CLOTH CO.

67 F. 790

WRIGHT & COLTON WIRE-CLOTH CO. v. CLINTON WIRE-CLOTH CO.

No. 125.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

May 10, 1895

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts.

Elmer P. Howe, for appellant.

Causten Browne and Alexander P. Browne, for appellee.

Before COLT, Circuit Judge, and NELSON and ALDRICH, District Judges.

ALDRICH District Judge.

This is a suit in equity in behalf of the Clinton Wire-Cloth Company wherein it is alleged that the defendant has infringed two letters patent,-- one for an improvement in the art of weaving wire cloth, and the other for an improved shuttle whereby the improvement in such art may be practiced. The complainant contends that prior to its inventions there was a practical difficulty in weaving wire cloth by means of a shuttle carrying a cop of wire; and that the difficulty resulted from the fact that the wire, as it lay on the cop in coils substantially at right angles to the axial line of the shuttle, necessarily at each turn, as the coil was paid out longitudinally from the cop, took into itself turns of twist, by reason of which the wire constantly tended to resume the spiral form in which it was while wound on the cop, instead of remaining in a straight line in the web, as was necessary in order to accomplish satisfactory work.

The complainant claims, under patent No. 239,012, dated March 15 1881, known as the 'Art Patent,' an invention which effectually removes this difficulty by swaging the twist into the body of the wire, which result, it is claimed, is accomplished by straining the wire around rollers as it passes from the cop to the loom and its place in the web. Under its other patent, No. 239,011, dated March 15, 1881, the complainant presents a combination shuttle consisting of a shuttle body for weaving wire, with a cop case or chamber, to contain the wire and swaging rolls, around which the wire passes after leaving the cop, and before leaving the shuttle, whereby the twists of the wire are swaged into its body, and smooth weaving insured. So it will be seen that under the Art patent, which is the first patent mentioned here, the complainant seeks to monopolize or control the means of swaging or straightening wire as it passes from the cop to the web; and that, under the second patent named, he seeks to control or monopolize the use of a combination shuttle, which it is said effectually performs the work.

We are of opinion that the means of straightening or swaging wire, as a general proposition, are old and well known, and that it has been understood for a long time that wire having crooks or twists could be straightened either by a hammering process, or by drawing the wire under tension around a rigid body or hard substance, like the horn of an anvil, for instance. It is probable that the boy is rare who has not in his playdays been confronted with the problem of straightening crooked or twisted wire, and it may be safely said that the problem was readily solved by holding one end of the wire in each hand, and drawing it firmly around some hard substance; and it mattered not, except in degree, whether the substance was a fixed rounded, or circulating, surface. It is probably true that the molecular condition of crooked or twisted wire is in a measure changed when subjected under tension to any of the old and well-known processes of straightening; and it therefore follows that the complainant's first or 'Art Patent,' so-called, should not, if sustained, be construed so broadly as to give a monopoly of all the means of straightening or swaging wire in the wire-weaving industry; and as we dispose of this case without passing upon the validity of the second patent, which is the patent covering the combination shuttle or device, we do not deem it necessary to pass upon the question whether such particular device accomplishes more or better results than the means involved in the older devices known and open to the art of weaving.

As has been said, the complainant's device covered by his shuttle patent is the combination of a shuttle body for weaving wire with a cop case or chamber to contain the wire and with swaging rolls, around which the wire passes after leaving the cop, and before leaving the shuttle. In this machine or combination shuttle there are three rolls, which are designated as 'swaging rolls,' and two other rolls, which are denominated as the usual 'delivery rolls.' The wire, under the strain of weaving, passes around the three first named, and then around one or the other of the delivery rolls, to its place in the web. As the shuttle is passed from one side of the loom to the other, the wire is drawn around the delivery rolls, to its place in the web. As the shuttle is passed from one side of the loom to the other, the wire is drawn around the delivery roll nearest to the point to which the shuttle is directed. The complainant does not claim that the two rolls called 'delivery rolls' are new, or that they perform in this device any necessary swaging function; and in fact it is conceded that...