10 Blatchf. 403 | U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York | 1873
This suit is brought on reissued letters patent granted to the plaintiffs, as assignees of Rudolph Eickemeyer, December 1st, 1868, for an “improvement in machines for stretching hat-bodies,” the original letters patent having been granted to said Eickemeyer, February 28th. 1865. The specification, which is signed by Eickemeyer, says: “In the manufacture of felt hats, the bodies, having been formed of a conical shape, and subjected to the process of felting, termed by hatters “sizing,” retain their conical form, and require to be stretched in the tip and crown, and also at the brim, to enable the hats to receive and maintain the form subsequently given to them by the operation of blocking. The hat-body being of a conical form, rounded at the tip, is nevertheless made with reference to the hat to be produced, and the different parts of it which are afterwards to be developed into the “tip,” “square,” “side-crown,” “band,” and “brim,” of the finished hat, are distinguished by imaginary lines or zones around the hat-body,- and the same names applied to them, the lower part of the sides being termed the “brim,” the upper part of the sides the “side-crown,” the line of division between the side-crown and brim the “band,” the rounded upper part the “tip,” and the dividing line between the tip and side-crown the “square.” In stretching hat-bodies for blocking, the band is not generally stretched circumfer-entially, or but slightly stretched, the stretching being required in the crown and tip, to produce the square or angular corner of the cylindrical or bell-crowned hat, and at the brim, in order that the latter may lie flat, or at right angles, or nearly so. to the side-crown, when blocked; and it is necessary that the body shall be stretched more, in those parts which require stretching, than would be sufficient to conform it to the shape of the hat-block, because, if not overstretched before blocking, the hat will shrink, when, in wear, it is exposed to-moisture, and tend to resume its conical shape, but, if over stretched, and suffered to shrink to the block, will retain its figure afterwards, under ordinary wear and exposure. In stretching a hat-body for square-crowned hats, the upper part of the hat-body is circumferentially stretched, most at the square, or angle of intersection between the side-crown and tip, beginning to stretch gradually from the centre of the tip and from the band, and increasing towards the square. The lower part of the body is stretched circumferentially, most at the edge of the brim, beginning to stretch gradually from the band. This stretching operation has hitherto been commonly performed by hand, notwithstanding the attempts that have been made to use expanding blocks, or expanding devices, inside of the bodies, for stretching the tips or crowns. Hat-bodies are generally made of unequal thickness from tip to brim, but of equal thickness, as near as may be, in the direction of the circumference, and the operation of stretching, sometimes called “wet-blocking,” by hand, requires great skill and care to stretch the parts requiring to be stretched, and preserve the requisite circumferential equality of thickness of the body, without over-straining or tearing the hat. The object of my invention is to perform this operation of stretching hat-bodies by machinery, and to
The defendants use, for stretching the tip and side-crown of a hat-body, a machine which does not, and cannot, stretch the brim; and, to stretch the brim, they use a separate machine, which does not, and cannot, stretch the tip and side-crown. The defendants’ tip and side-crown stretcher has ribs which support the tip and side-crown, and a series of stretching devices, which, instead of being rollers, are fixed round-edged surfaces. The ribs and stretching devices operate to stretch
The defendants’ brim-stretcher has ribs which support the brim, and a series of stretching devices, which, instead of being rollers, are fixed round-edged surfaces. The ribs and stretching devices operate to stretch the brim between them. But, in the • defendants’ arrangement, there is a convex-ribbed former, on which the hat-body is placed, which is formed like the ribs and stretchers of an umbrella, the hat-body being placed on the former, when the ribs are in their lowest position. Above this is another ribbed former; and, when the brim on the convex former has reached the concave part of the other former, the wrinkling commences, by the action of the ribs of one former between the ribs of the other former, and then a hand-lever throws out or expands the ribs of the convex former, by an operation like that of opening an umbrella, and the stretching is thereby completed, the ribs of the convex former, during the latter operation, bearing, in their whole length, on the brim, in lines extending from the band to the outside of the brim. The action in the first part of the operation is like that in the defendants’ tip-stretcher; but, in the latter part of the operation, there is an action not found in such tip-stretcher nor in the plaintiffs’ arrangement.
It is shown, by the evidence, that the defendants’ arrangements, in their two stretchers, from the fact that the action is on the whole of a given wrinkle at the same time, are better adapted to the stretching of tender hat-bodies, such as those made of fur, as generally made, than is the plaintiffs’ arrangement. But, while the defendants’ arrangements may contain improvements on the plaintiffs’ arrangement, yet they embody what is claimed in the second and third claims of the plaintiffs’ patent The defendants’ tip and side-crown, stretcher has ribs supporting the tip and side-crown, and a series of stretching devices, which ribs are substantially the same as those of the patent, and which stretching devices are substantially the upper series of stretching devices in the patent, when made in the shape of fixed round-edged surfaces, as suggested in the patent, and the ribs and stretching devices are combined and arranged substantially as described in the patent They operate to stretch the tip and side-crown between them, substantially in the manner set forth in the patent. So, too, the defendants’ brim-stretcher has ribs supporting the brim, and a series of stretching devices, which ribs are substantially the same as those of the patent, . and which stretching devices are substantially the lower series of stretching devices in the patent, when made in the shape of fixed round-edged surfaces, as suggested in the patent, and the ribs and stretching devices are combined and arranged substantially as described in the patent. They operate to stretch the brim between them, substantially in the manner set forth in the patent The defendants’ lower formers are radially ribbed. The hat-body to be stretched is placed on them. The ribs of those formers act as internal supporting and stretching surfaces. The defendants have external stretching devices, in series, which act on the outside portions of the hat-body that are to be stretched in opposition to the internal action of the ribs of the lower formers, and between such ribs, and in the centres of the recesses between such ribs. The mechanical combination and arrangement of the internal and external supporting and stretching devices, in the defendants’ machines, with relation to each other, and to the work to be done, are such, that the two sets of devices are brought together accurately, and automatically, so that their parts interlock properly and stretch the interposed materials in the required places, and equality in the action circumferentially of the stretching- devices on the parts to be stretched, and facility of operation, are secured. The combination consists in mounting the set of ribs and the set of stretching devices concentrically, with a coincident axis, and moving one set accurately towards the other, by mechanical guides, the stretching devices being opposite the centres of the recesses between the ribs. All these features the defendants’ machines have in common with the plaintiffs’. These features are essential features in the plaintiffs’ arrangement, and are the features covered, as respects the tip-stretcher, by the second claim of the patent, and, as respects the brim-stretcher, by the third claim of the patent. That the defendants have added some features of construction and operation, which are not found in the plaintiffs’ patent, whereby the machine may be improved, cannot relieve the defendants from the charge of in
The principal ground of defence urged is, that, before Eickemeyer made his invention, one John Hutchinson, at Matteawan, New York, invented and constructed, and successfully used, in a crude way, instruments for stretching the tips and the brims of hat-bodies, which instruments had the same mode of operation as that of instruments found in the defendants’ machines. The •date of Eickemeyer’s invention was the summer of 1864. The identical instruments which Hutchinson used are produced. They were used by Hutchinson in 1860. They •are, and always were, detached parts, and never were organized into a machine working automatically. Hutchinson’s parts to ■stretch the brim of the hat-body are three in number — a convex, conical-shaped former, with ribs; a concave, conical-shaped former, with ribs pivoted like the ribs of an umbrella; and a dome-shaped piece. They are manipulated by handling them. The hat-body is placed on the convex former. The concave former is then placed on the top of the hat-body, with its ribs resting on the hat-body. The dome-shaped piece, which is hollow, is then placed over the concave former, and forced down, so as to drive the ribs of the concave former into the recesses between the ribs of the convex former, and carry the brim, in wrinkles, towards the axis of the convex former. In the defendants’ brim stretcher, the brim is carried, in wrinkles, away from the axis of the convex, former, because the wrinkling is performed by an operation like that of opening an umbrella. In Hutchinson’s device, the wrinkling is performed by an operation like that of shutting an umbrella. Hutchinson’s parts to stretch the tip of the hat-body consist of a concave-ribbed former and a convex-ribbed former, manipulated by hand, and, like the two formers in the defendants’ tip stretcher, in construction, as ribbed formers, and brought together to stretch the tip between them, placed on the convex former, by pressing the ribs of one former between the recesses in the other former. Hutchinson, in using his brim-stretching devices, employed a lever, which had its fulcrum in a post which formed a part of a building, to make pressure on the top of the dome-shaped piece, the fulcrum being at the end of the lever. There was no organized machine. The description given of the use of the devices is, that they were tried, to see whether they would block a hat or not; that they were not operated continuously; that sometimes Hutchinson would make an alteration, and then another trial would be made, to see whether the alteration was any improvement; that but one brim stretcher was made, and that of wood, which was broken several times in operating it; that the tip stretcher was of wood, and was tried on a few tips, and was broken, in use, and never repaired; that Hutchinson had the idea of constructing a machine embodying the principle of such devices, but had no definite plan as to the appliances by which the machine was to work out such principle; that nothing was done towards carrying out such intention; that the devices were tried in 1860, prior to, but not later than, June; that they were then stowed away in a closet, where old books and papers were kept, in a factory where Hutchinson continued to be employed for two years afterwards; and that they remained in that closet, unused, for three years and a half, and were then removed to another place, whence they were taken to be used as evidence in favor of the parties defending this suit. These devices of Hutchinson amounted to nothing, and were practically useless, for the reason that they were not combined in an organized machine. They lacked the combination and arrangement of them which Eickemeyer made, and which secures circumferential equality of action of the stretching devices on the material, and accuracy of operation, by means of the concentric approach to, and recession from, each other, of the ribs and stretching devices. The equable intervention of the ribs between the stretching devices is an essential feature of the patent, due to the mechanical organization. There is no such feature in Hutchinson’s devices, because there is no mechanical organization capable of developing such feature. Whether the ribs and stretching devices, in Hutchinson’s tools, will move concentrically or not, is a matter of accident, and dependent on the skill of the person handling the tools, and the equability of intervention of the ribs and stretching devices is equally a matter of accident and skill in handling.
There is, therefore, nothing in what Hutchinson did that can interfere with the second and third claims of the patent, which are the only ones involved in this suit. Even if Eickemeyer had seen and known of what Hutchinson did. he would have been entitled to make those two claims. It has been attempted to be shown that Eickemeyer knew of and saw Hutchinson’s devices. Whether he did or not, is of no importance. But the evidence wholly fails to show that he did. Hutchinson’s devices amounted to nothing. They needed the addition of what is found in the defendants’ machines, and which makes of them combinations that were invented by Eickemeyer. It is a mistake to say, that the claims of the plaintiffs’ patent cover Hutchinson’s instruments. So far as the plaintiffs’ patent is concerned, those instruments are free to be used by the defendants in the manner in which Hutchinson used them.
The claims of the original patent granted to Eickemeyer were as follows: “1st. The employment, in the process of stretching hats, of a skeleton or ribbed and recessed
There is no more warrant for saying, in this case, that Eickemeyer did not intend, in taking out his original patent, to make such claims as the second and third claims •of the reissued patent, than there is, in every ease of a reissue, for saying that claims in the reissue, not found in the original, were not intended to be made, when the original was taken out, because they were not put in, as claims, into the original. On this principle, there never could be a reissue covering claims not substantially found, as claims, in the original.
The argument on the part of the defendants seems to be founded on the idea, that the second and third claims of the reissued ■patent cover the use of Hutchinson’s tools, as Hutchinson used them. This is an error. The use of Hutchinson’s tools, as he used them, are not combinations of them, such as the second and third claims of the plaintiffs’ patent intend and cover. There are no mechanical combinations of Hutchinson’s tools, when they are used as he used them. The .second claim of the reissue does not cover broadly the use of the tip former in connection with the upper series of stretchers, detached from the mechanical combination and arrangement of such former and stretchers, found in the plaintiffs’ patent, and not found in Hutchinson’s tools. So, too, the third claim of the reissue does not cover broadly the use of the brim former in connection with the lower series of stretchers, detached from the mechanical combination and arrangement of such formers and stretchers, found in the plaintiffs’ patent and not found in Hutchinson’s tools.
There must be a decree for the plaintiffs, for a perpetual injunction, and an account of profits, and an ascertainment of damages, with costs, in respect to the second and third claims of the patent