« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
the guide to be raised and lowered to suit the thickness of the stuff, substantially as set forth. (4) An anti-friction guide which is adjustable so as to accommodate different thicknesses of saw-blades, and to compensate for wear, in combination with the upper portion of a web-saw blade, substantially as set forth. (5) The combination of the anti-friction saw support and guide, or the equivalent thereof, with an adjustable*guard, or its equivalent, substantially as and for the purpose set forth.”
Infringement of only claims 4 and 5 of the reissue is alleged. It is apparent, in reading the specification of the original patent and that of the reissue, that Richards contemplated the use of his improvements only in connection with a saw-blade, the upper end of which was free from any suspender or sash, and the lower end of which was 80 connected with mechanism as to obtain the desired motion in the saw. Claim 4 of the reissue, claims, as an element in the combination covered by that claim, “the upper portion of a web-saw blade.”
The saw-blade shown in the drawings, and the only saw-blade which can have an upper portion capable of being free or disconnected, in the sense in which those words are used, is a reciprocating saw-blade, actuated from below, and alternately pushed and pulled.
The specification of the reissue states that Richards' saw is supported and guided “without any means of tension being employed.”
The defendants use a band-saw, which is an endless saw, passing over wheels, and running constantly in one direction, towards the table on which the stuff lies, and having a tension over the peripheries of the wheels. For this reason, the defendants do not need nor do they have any guard which performs the function of the guard embraced as an element in the combination covered by claim 5 of the reissue, of holding down the stuff against the upward lifting action of the saw, because the saw is constantly passing downward. There is, therefore, no infringement of either claim 4 or claim 5.
The second patent sued on is No. 78,880, granted to J. A. Fay & Co., June 16, 1868, for an "improvement in guides for band-saws," on the invention of John Lemman. The specification says:
Figure 1 is a front elevation of one of my improved guides; Figure 2 is a side elevation of the same; Figure 3 is an elevation of the anti-friction roller b, removed from the guide; and Figure 4 is a partial plan, showing the
manner of adjusting the lateral guides. Similar letters of reference in the different figures indicate corresponding parts. In operating endless saws, guides are+needed both above and below the wood. As is well known, the high speed at which these saws are driven, and the small amount of surface presented to the guide from the edge of the saw-plate, cause fixed guides to wear away very fast, even if made of hardened steel or glass, particularly when heavy sawing is done, and the strain of the feed falls on the saw. Rolling guides, while they have partially overcome the difficulty of friction and wear on the back of the saw, cannot be constructed to give a proper lateral support to the saw, as will hereafter be alluded to. The object of the invention here illustrated is to obviate these several difliculties, and give important advantages in operating saws of this kind. Its nature consists in a combination of anti-friction rollers and fixed guides, the first to support the back or thin edge of the saw, and to have lateral adjustment, presenting different
points to wear; the fixed guides as a lateral support, and so constructed as to accomodate saws of different widths, as hereinafter explained. To enable others skilled in the art to make and use my inventio I will proceed to de scribe its mode of construction and the manner of operating the same, with the aid of the drawings. a is a frame or support for the guides. It is cored out to receive the wheel b, with room for lateral adjustment. On the top is a cylindrical extension, h, intended to be connected to a bar, on which the whole structure is adjusted up and down, to suit the thickness of the wood being sawed. b is an anti-friction wheel of hardened steel or other suitable material, mounted on an axis, f, as shown in Fig. 3, and by red lines in Fig. 1. This axis has conical bearings formed in the piece g, which allows of compensation for wear, and by loosening the screws ss, the wheel b and bearings g g can be adjusted laterally, so as to bring different points of the periphery of wheel b in contact with the saw. col c are lateral guides to keep the saw from turning and in a true line. These guides are so arranged that two or more of them can be used and the others removed or adjusted to receive a narrow saw, as shown in Fig. 4. The holes through which the screws d d pass are slotted, as shown by red lines, Fig. 1. E is a section of a band-saw, sufficiently wide to allow of all the plates, C C c, being used. The wheel b is so arranged as to barely pass through the plate m, and come in contact with the saw E. Oil-holes are formed at i i, Fig. 1, communicating with the bear-, ings of axis f, as shown in Fig. 1. The operation will be readily understood. Having thus explained the nature and objects of my invention, I do not claim the use of an anti-friction roller applied to the back of the saw; neither do I claim the fixed lateral guides.”
There is only one claim, in these words:
“The combination of the roller 6 with fixed lateral guides, o c c, one or more, arranged and operating substantially in the manner and for the purposes specified."
This patent stands on very narrow ground. Anti-friction rollers applied to the back of the saw are disclaimed and were old. Fixed lateral guides for the faces of the saw are disclaimed and were old. The text of the specification limits the invention to a combination of an anti-friction wheel to support the back or thin edge of the saw, and to have lateral adjustment, presenting different points to wear, with fixed guides to support laterally the faces of the saw, the fixed guides being so constructed as to accommodate saws of different widths. The anti-friction wheel, by means of its conical bearings, can be advanced nearer, as it wears, to the back edge of the saw; and the wheel and its bearings are capable of being adjusted laterally, so as to bring different points of the periphery of the wheel in contact with the back edge of the saw. The arrangement of fixed guides referred to is manifestly that described in the Richards patent. The only point of invention dwelt on in the Lemman specification is the lateral adjustability of the wheel, which, though it is to be an antifriction wheel, and so is to be made of hardened steel or other suit. able material, will still wear away on the surface presented to the edge of the saw; and the lateral adjustment enables different points of the periphery of the wheel to be brought into contact with the saw, so as to present different points to wear from time to time. Thus the
entire width of a periphery of a wheel may be utilized. The defend. ants have used a wheel which has two grooves in it, in one of which the saw runs and in either of which it can run. The wheel can be adjusted laterally, so as to bring the one or the other of the two grooves into use. But there is no adjustment to bring different points of the periphery of a smooth-faced wheel into use. In view of the state of the art and of the limitations of the specification there has been no infringement. Merely adjusting a wheel laterally, so as to give it different positions at different times, was a thing well known to mechanics; and running the back edge of a saw in a groove in a roller existed in the prior Closterman device.
The third patent sued on is No. 120,949, granted to J. A. Fay & Co., November 14, 1871, for an "improvement in band-sawing machines,” on the invention of William H. Doane and William P. McKee. Claims 1, 2, 3, and 4 of this patent are alleged to have been infringed, there being seven claims. The specification, so far as it is material to be cited, says:
“ The first part of our invention relates to an improved form of supporting frame and of the upper and lower arbor-bearings, whereby the said bearings, with their inclosed arbors, are made easily accessible and removable for inspection and repair, and relatively adjustable, so as to be brought into exact line, and otherwise so regulated as to insure the perfect operation of the saw, as hereinafter explained. * * Figure 1 is a perspective view of a machine embodying our improvements. Figure 2 is a vertical section of the machine in the plane of its arbors. * * Figure 5 is a plan of the lower arbor-bearing. The frame which supports the operative parts of our machine consists of a single casting of the peculiar form here represented; that is to say, a base, A, from whose rear end there rises the main column or standard A1, (supporting the upper arbor-bearing and saw guide,) and from whose front end there rises a shorter column or pedestal A”, which
latter supports and is surmounted by the bench or table B, on which the stuff rests. The depression which intervenes between the columns A1 and A' leaves exposed a seat, which extends below the center of the lower arbor and is entirely open upward, which seat forms an accessible and convenient place for the attachment, inspection, and regulation, and, when necessary, the ready detachment, of the lower arborbearing, which bearing is constructed as follows: Bolted or otherwise securely fastened to the top of base A is a pillow-block, C, having vertical fanges c c. The flanges c cl are traversed near their front end by two co-axial horizontal bolts D D1, which, entering orifices in the box or bearing E E1 of the lower pulley-arbor F, constitute a pivoted* fastening for the said bearing. A setscrew, G, tapped in the bottom of the pedestal C, and pressing upwards against the box E E', enables its adjustment and retention to horizontality, or such approximation thereto as may be desired. Other set-screws, H H1, passing horizontally through the flanges c c', near their rear end, enable the adjustment and retention of said box to a common vertical plane with the upper arbor. The end of the lower arbor most remote from the pulley I carries the driving-pulley J. It will be seen that, on the loosening of four screws, the entire lower arbor and journal-box may be lifted bodily upwards and detached from the machine, without detaching the pulley from the arbor. The upper part of the standard A1 is curved forward, as represented, and has a slot. a, to hold and guide to a vertical path a step or saddle, K, to which is pivoted , lug, l, that depends rigidly from the upper arbor-bearing LL. The saddle B has a horizontal extension, k, which bears on the point of a screw, M, occupy.
Ing a nut, T, that rests on a spring or cushion, O, in the bottom of the slot a. The screw M being turned to the right or left elevates or depresses the upper arbor-bearing, and, in so doing, causes the proper tension to be imparted to the saw. Another screw, N, that is tapped in the lug 1, bears against the face of the saddle K, and enables the regulation, or angular adjustment, in a vertical plane, of the upper arbor-bearing. The above-describeà capacity for angular adjustment of the band-pulley arbors in their common plane enables the operator to confine the path of the saw nicely to the middle of the pulleys, or to shift it more or less towards the front or back portions of their peripheries, so as to cause all parts to be equally worn. The spring 0, while co-acting with the screw M to preserve the proper tension of the saw, also imparts an elastic and yielding quality to the tension. * * While preferring the described relative positions of the pivot-screws D D1, and laterally adjusting screws HH1, we do not confine ourselves thereto, as the pivot screws may be situated near the rear and the adjusting screws near the front portion of the box.”
The first six claims are as follows: “(1) The frame A A’A", in combination with the lower arbor-bearing, said frame being constructed as herein described with a depression, A", permitting the ready removal of the arbor, as explained. (2) The arrangement of frame A A1 A" A'", and of the horizontally and vertically adjustable arborbearing C D D1 E E G H A. (3) The arrangement of step or saddle K and its contained box or bearing L L. (4) in combination with the upper arbor L1 the lower arbor-bearing E, adjustable both vertically and horizontally, as shown and described and for the purpose set forth. (5) In combination with the lower arbor, the upper arbor-bearing, adjustable in a vertical plane by means of the screw M, nut T, and spring 0, as and for the purpose designated. (6) The combination of the slotted standard A1 a, saddle Kk, arborbearing Lil, nut T, screws M N, and spring or cushion O, as shown and described, for the purpose set forth.”
As to claim 1, it is for a combination of the three-sided frame A A'A', with the lower arbor-bearing, when the frame is constructed with a depression, A'', intervening between the columns A' and A", which leaves exposed a seat which is entirely open upward, so as to give convenient access to the lower arbor-bearing, to attach, inspect, and regulate it, and also detach it, with its journal-box, by lifting the arbor and journal-box bodily upward without removing the pulley from the arbor. In the defendants' machine the seat is not entirely open upward, and there is a hole through the body of the frame to receive the lower arbor-bearing, and the arbor-bearing cannot be removed without detaching the pulley from the arbor. This claim is not infringed.
As to claim 2, it is for the arrangement and combination of the three-sided frame A A A" and the depression Al with the horizontally and vertically adjustable arbor-bearing, consisting of the pillowblock or pedestal C, the two co-axial horizontal bolts, D D', the box or bearing E E', the vertical set-screw G which adjusts the box E E' to horizontality, the horizontal set-screw H which adjusts the box E E' to a common vertical plane with the upper arbor, and the base A which carries the pillow-block or pedestal C. All these features in combination are made necessary in claim 2. It claims a combination of the frame and depression of claim 1 with the special construc
tion of arbor-bearing set forth. The defendants do not have the frame and depression of claim 1, as already shown, and thus do not have that element of the combination covered by claim 2. More. over, the co-axial bolts D D' are a necessary feature of the peculiar arbor-bearing of the patent, and no such bolts are found in the defendants' machine; and, if it has any means of adjusting the lower arbor-bearing, either horizontally or vertically, in the sense in which such adjustment is described in the patent, it has not the same means or equivalent means to what is found in the patent.
As to claim 3, it is for the arrangement of the step or saddle, K, with the upper arbor-bearing, L L', contained in it. What is the arrangement of the step or saddle, K, in connection with the arborbearing? The saddle moves through vertical slide-ways and it has pivoted to it a lug, l, which depends rigidly from the arbor-bearing. A screw, N, tapped into the lug, l, bears against the face of the saddle, so as to allow of the adjustment in a vertical plane of the upper arbor-bearing. The saddle has also a horizontal extension, k, which bears on the point of a screw, M, occupying a nut, T, which rests on a spring or cushion, O, in the bottom of the slot. By turning the screw, M, to the right or the left the upper arbor-bearing is elevated or depressed, and thus more or less tension is given to the saw. The spring, O, gives an elastic character to the tension. The effect of the arrangement or combination is to give an elastic vertical adjustment and also a horizontal adjustment. The whole object of the saddle with the lug, l, and the extension, k, is to adjust the arbor.bearing up and down and sidewise, and at the same time give an elastic tension to the saw. The spring carries the weight of the saddle. There can be no operative arrangement of the saddle with the arbor-bearing which does not include the lug, 1, the screw, N, the extension, k, the screw M, the nut T, and the spring O. These are all elements in the arrangement or combination covered by claim 3. The spring is essential in the patent, as a part of claim 2. The defendants have a rigid saddle, and no spring. The fact that the spring is an element in claims 5 and 6 does not prevent its being an element in claim 3.
There being no infringements of claims 2 and 3 there is none of claim 4.
The claims of the patents sued on in this case are claims for combinations. In such a claim, if the patentee specifies any element as 'entering into the combination, either directly by*the language of the claim, or by such a reference to the descriptive part of the specification as carries such element into the claim, he makes such element material to the combination, and the court cannot declare it to be immaterial. It is his province to make his own claim and his priv. ilege to restrict it. If it be a claim to a combination, and be restricted to specified elements, all must be regarded as material, leav. ing open only the question whether an omitted part is supplied by