« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
2 PATENTs ($ 328*)—VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT—TRAveling CRANE. The Shem patent, No. 791,951, for improvements in double trolley traveling cranes, was not anticipated, and discloses patentable invention in view of the marked superiority in safety and economy, in more extended use and constant operation of the patented structure over those of the prior art, although claims 1 and 2 are void as too broad. The remaining claims also held infringed. • Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. t * - - Suit in equity by the Alliance Machine Company against the Morgan Engineering Company. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
This suit was brought by the Alliance Machine Company, assignee of one George W. Shem, to obtain relief against alleged infringement by the Morgan Engineering Company of patent No. 791.951, granted by the United States March 17, 1905, to Shem for certain improvements in cranes. It is admitted by the answer that the letters patent were granted to Shem, but it is denied that he was the original inventor; and, after the usual denials, It is alleged that the improvements do not constitute patentable invention or discovery, and also that the material parts of the invention had prior to its date been described and patented in divers printed publications and patents, and a number are specified in paragraph 8 of the answer, and in an amendment made thereto, among which are letters patent No. 528,621, granted by the United States to A. J. Shaw, November 7, 1904, for improvements in hoisting machinery, and letters patent No. 78,579, granted in Germany to Bock and Henkel, in 1894; also in a certain design made by one Sawyer for the Shaw Electric Company. Thereupon replication was filed. Proofs were taken, the cause was heard, and on November 25, 1908, decree was entered finding for Complainant, allowing recovery of gains and profits, ordering reference and accounting and granting writ of injunction. From this decree the Morgan Company appealed. The nature and object of the patent in sult are in part thus stated in the Specifications: “My invention relates to that class of traveling cranes which Carry both a main hoisting-trolley and an auxiliary hoisting-trolley. The object of my invention is to so construct such a crane as to permit ready accessibility to the supplementary trolley, to reduce the strain upon the girders which constitute the side members of the crane-bridge, to permit of the mount. ing at any desired point on the bridge, preferably at the longitudinal center of the same, of the motor which drives the bridge-traversing mechanism, to Increase the range of movement of both of the trolleys, and to permit of a oore compact arrangement of the hoisting mechanism on the main trolley than is possible with the ordinary construction of crane.” The manner of obtaining the advantages mentioned is thereupon shown by descriptive words and drawings. The first drawing displays a side elevation of the crane made according to the invention, and the second one an end view 9. Cross-section of the crane. Further description, with copies of drawings, Will be found in the opinion. It is stated in the specifications that the inven. tion “is shown as applied to a ladle-crane.” It is then stated that the ordi*ty construction of ladle-cranes was open to many objections: That the Weight of the supplementary trolley and its load caused excessive strain upon the girders supporting the crane-bridge; that so suspending and supPorting the supplementary trolley required the hoisting-chains of the main olley to be placed outside of the girders, also requiring a wide separation of the hoisting-drums, prevented locating the bridge-driving motor on any part of the bridge except at its extreme end, also required a shaft almost as long *...the crane-bridge for transmitting power from the motor to one end of the
torneo, and so limited the range of movements of trolleys on the cranege.
The plan adopted for overcoming these objections in substance was to widen the space between the bridge girders, place between them two parallel girders, operate the supplementary trolley on these intermediate girders, and suspend the hoisting-chains depending from the main trolley inside instead of outside of the main girders. It is then stated that the plan proposed overcomes the objections to the usual construction thus: “* * * The parts are compactly disposed, the strains are divided and distributed, a central location of the bridge-driving motor upon the bridge is permitted with its accompanying ad. . vant o: relatively short lengths of transmitting-shaft between the motor “” and the "bridge-supporting trucks, and in which, furthermore, the range of ...trave? wf:either-trol y is not restricted by the presence of said motor or other ..: appyttenances of the crane, a full travel of the trolley from one end of the * 'bridge to the other being permitted.” The claims are as follows: “1. A crane having a bridge with main hoisting-trolley mounted upon the main girders of said bridge, and a supplementary trolley mounted upon supplementary girders independent of said main girders, substantially as specified. “2. A crane having a bridge with main hoisting-trolley mounted upon the main girders of said bridge, and a supplementary trolley mounted upon Supplementary girders independent of said main girders, said supplementary girders being located between the main girders, substantially as specified. “3. A crane having a bridge with main and supplementary hoisting-trolleys, the main hoisting-trolley being mounted upon the main outer girders of the bridge, and the supplementary trolley being mounted upon supplementary interior girders, the hoisting-chains from the main trolley depending between the said main and supplementary girders, substantially as specified. “4. A crane having a bridge with main and supplementary hoisting-trolleys, the main hoisting-trolley being mounted upon the main outer girders of the bridge, and the supplementary trolley being mounted upon supplementary interior girders, the hoisting-chains from the main trolley depending between the said main and supplementary girders, and the hoisting-chains from the supplementary trolley depending between the supplementary girders which carry said trolley, substantially as specified. “5. A crane having a traveling bridge with outer main girders, supplementary inner girders, main hoisting-trolley mounted upon the main girders, and having its hoisting-chains depending between the main and supplementary girders, a supplementary hoisting-trolley mounted upon said supplementary girders, and a bridge-driving motor centrally mounted upon one of the outer girders, substantially as specified.”
H. A. Seymour and F. P. Fish, for appellant.
J Before LURTON, SEVERENS, and WARRINGTON, Circuit udges.
WARRINGTON, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above). In the view we take of this case, it is necessary first to consider whether the patent involves the quality of invention. It is claimed that Shem's improvements over the prior art consisted in the relocation and rearrangement of the parts of the well-known double trolley traveling crane, without the result of any new function or mode of operation. and that this does not amount to patentable invention. The relevance and force of this contention may be tested by a comparison of the advantages of a crane made according to this invention, with the disadvantages of the type of crane in use at the date of the patent. The comparison will be more accurate and helpful if it is applied, as patentee in his specifications applied his invention, to ladle-cranes.
The description given of the prior state of the art in the specifications of the letters patent, as in substance pointed out in the statement, seems to us to be borne out by the evidence. The same is true of the advantages attained by the invention, as there stated.
This is a combination patent. It has relation to hoisting and transporting mechanism as applied to ladle-cranes. As stated by learned counsel for appellant, this type of traveling crane “is most properly used for the handling of molten steel delivered from the furnaces of the steel plant into a ladle, and for carrying this ladle to a place where the contents of the ladle are discharged into ingot molds.” Necessarily the inventor had to do with an old subject and an existing art. The movement and uses made of any substance as necessary and dangerous as is molten metal must always have engaged the faculties of men in contriving new and improved safety devices for its control.
An illustration of the old form of ladle-crane is, we think, fairly represented by the following sketch:
Fig. 1 represents the bridge of the crane in side elevation, and Fig. 3 represents it in cross-section. A, A, are the main girders attached to the end carriages, B, B, having wheeled trucks that run on tracks, Q. C. The main trolley, D, is carried on tracks of the main girders. A, A, and is provided with hoisting drums, E, E, from which the hoisting chains are suspended on the outside of the main trolley, D, and outside of the main girders, A, A. Each hoisting-chain as shown on Fig. 2 is fastened on the lower end to a cross-bar, from the ends of Which are suspended hooks for engaging the trunnions of the ladles. The auxiliary trolley, G, is operated over runways attached to the Inside lower edges of the two main girders, A, A. The auxiliary trolley is equipped with one hoisting-chain carrying a hook on its end, used for operating the ladles. This is what is known as the overhanging ladle-crane. *
The following are copies of the drawings of the patent in suit:
"Fig. 1 is a side elevation of a crane constructed in accordance with my inwention, and Fig. 2 is an end view of the same on a larger scale.
"Referring in the first instance to Fig. 1 of the drawings, 1, 1, represent the main girders upon which the bridge of the crane is mounted and upon which it can travel, said bridge consisting of a pair of longitudinal side girders, 2, with suitable transverse connections at the ends, which connections Constitute end carriages, 3, each of the latter having a wheeled truck running upon rails on the main girder, 1, and some of the wheels of these trucks being rotated