Lapas attēli

opposite ends on shoulders formed on the interior of the hollow shaft and exterior of the plunger, as shown in Fig. 4 of the drawings. In pushing the free end of the lever toward the dial at the same time of entering the pin in the perforation of said dial, the plunger is forced inward, and by means of the cam or lever arm, d', throws the platen toward the type-wheel. In order to obtain a more effective stroke of the said platen I pivot a latch, j, to a bracket, i', fastened to the rear of the plate, A', as shown in Figs. 4 and 9 of the drawings. Said latch comes in contact with the spring-arm, c', of the platen in its move ment toward the type-wheel and subjects said spring-arm to considerable strain toward the latter part of the inward movement of the plunger. A tripping finger, d''', fixed to the rock-shaft, d, strikes the latch during the latter part of the movement of the plunger, and thereby releases the spring-arm, c', from the latch. The platen then receives the spring action of the spring arm.

"In order to hold the type-wheel stationary during the period of printing, I employ a detent, F', which engages the notched-wheel, B', similar to that shown in the patent to Alexander Dey hereinbefore mentioned. Said detent is pivoted to a bracket, F", fastened to the top portion of the plate, A', and is thrown into engagement with the said notched-wheel simultaneously with the movement of the platen toward the type wheel by means of an arm, d", fixed to the rock-shaft, d, and a rod, d''', connecting said arm with the detent in front of the pivot thereof, as shown in Fig. 6 of the drawings.”

Then follows a description of the "carbon ribbon" which passes between the type-wheel and impression band, E, and is wound upon and secured at opposite ends to the spools, E', and their moving mechanism is then described. These spools, E', correspond in location with the rollers, D, D', and the carbon ribbon travels in unison with the impression-receiving band, but by its own mechanism. The rollers, D, D', are shown in the drawings arranged in a horizontal plane at some little distance from each other and below the time wheels. The platen is located at an intermediate point just below a line drawn in the horizontal plane of the upper edges of these rollers. Consequently that part of the band, as well as that part of the carbon ribbon reaching from roller to roller and from spool to spool, respectively, are in the air, so to speak, unsupported except at the points where they touch the rollers and spools. This part

This part of the impression band and this part of the carbon ribbon are kept taut in the manner described. pended part of the impression band is guarded against disruption as follows:

"A stop, ť', on the dial prevents the lever, g", from making more than a complete revolution in either direction, thus obviating the danger of disrupting the impression receiving band."

The construction and combination pointed out and described neither presents nor suggests an alternative construction, nor presents this as a preferred construction. The patent points out and sets forth a specific “band movable longitudinally in either direction" and specific means for so moving it and a specifically arranged and located “platen actuated by said lever” which is operated by the specific means described.

Here arises the controversy in this case. The defendant's time recorder, which is of the same type, has in combination (1) the timeprinting wheels; a band, impression band having "a row of consecutive numbers marked upon it," and which is "movable longitudinally in either direction” only in so far as any tape or band wound upon a single wheel or spool, or roller, is movable longitudinally in either

This sus

direction as it is unwound therefrom by the revolution of such wheel or spool, or as it is carried (a very small portion of it indeed) in a longitudinal direction by the revolution of the wheel or roller. In strict refinement, in this latter case, it is but a mere point of the band that is movable in a longitudinal direction as the roller revolves. Such a movement of the band is very far from the longitudinal movement of the band when unwound from one wheel or roller and wound upon another of the same size both revolving in the same horizontal plane. This is not a fanciful nor a technical difference, but a substantial one. In defendant's time recorder, alleged to infringe, this band, having the consecutive numbers marked thereon, is wound on one roller, and not attached to any other, and all the printing done on it is done by either striking or pressing this roller, and consequently the band, against the type on the time-printing wheel, or by bringing the latter down against the roller having the band wound thereon. Defendant's time recorder has, also, the manually operated lever controlling the movement of the band, for the reason it controls the revolution of the roller on which it is wound, and for no other reason and in no other way, and also the index traversed by the lever and numbered to correspond to the band; but, the important and crucial question is: Does the defendant's recorder have "a platen actuated by said lever and pressing the band into contact with the time-printing wheels as set forth," or an allowable equivalent?

One roller of the patent in suit is dispensed with entirely; both rollers as therein described, and one roller is substituted. So the platen and much of the mechanism actuating it of the patent in suit is dispensed with entirely. And the substituted platen, if it may properly be called that, does not press the band into contact with the timeprinting wheels, except as it, being wound on the roller and on the periphery thereof before the band is wound thereon, is necessarily interposed between the wheel proper and the band, and, therefore, when the roller is pressed against the time-printing wheels, or vice versa, the band is necessarily pressed into contact with the time-printing wheels. In no proper sense, in my judgment, docs this platen, which is merely some yielding substance attached to the surface of the periphery of the roller, press the band into contact with the timeprinting wheels. That is done by the roller as it moves or as it is struck by the moving time-printing wheels. In the patent in suit, the operation of the platen there shown, described and made an essential element of the claim, and without which the device patented is inoperative, has an independent movement of its own and, in part, independent mechanism for actuating it. It does not operate in the same way as does defendant's to effect the printing. In the alleged infringing time recorder, the platen is a mere incident to the completed roller and may be of any material, or may be wholly omitted as the recorder, the wheels, and roller would record or print the time on the band just the same, although not as well or as distinctly.

In defendant's recorder we have in place of the two rollers, D, D', and the independent hammer or free end of the spring-arm on the face of which the platen proper is placed, and the spring-arm and its

actuating mechanism, and some of the mechanism of one of the rollers, a single roller on the periphery of which is placed, conforming thereto, a substance of the same general nature and serving the same purpose as the corresponding substance on the hammer at the free end of the "spring-arm,” d', and which together make the platen, and on this, conforming to the periphery of this roller, is wound the “impression band." This is not the platen of the patent in suit, but it s broadly, in connection with the roller, an equivalent in so far as it serves the same purpose, but it does not operate in the same way, nor is it actuated in the same way, or by the same or even similar means. The actual printing is not done in the same way. It is an improvement and a marked improvement on the platen of the patent in suit. It is not a mere change in form. In printing "a platen” is "the fat part of a press which comes down upon the form, and by which the impression is made. Platen press, any form of printing press which gives impression from a platen, in distinction from rotary or cylinder presses, which give impression from a cylinder or a curved surface." Century Dictionary. Platen:

“(a) The part of a printing press which presses the paper against the type and by which the impression is made: (b) hence an analogous part of a typewriter on wbich the paper rests to receive an impression; (c) the movable table of a machine tool, as a planer, on which the work is fastened and presented to the action of the tool."

From a careful study of the derivation and meaning of the word “platen" in mechanics, especially in the printing press art, and from the minute and detailed description of the "platen" of the patent in suit, given in the specifications thereof, I am convinced that Dey had in mind and intended a combination, in claim 1 in suit, having a separate and distinct platen as a separate and distinct element movable and actuated by its own peculiar mechanism, as distinguished from the rollers, D, D', carrying the band. The two rollers, D, D', are not made an element of the claim, but "a band movable longitudinally in either direction in proximity to said printing wheels” is, and as this must be in the combination and connected with it, in some way, and that way or mode is specifically pointed out and is by means of the two rollers, without which the device would be wholly inoperative, I think the rollers, or an equivalent, are a part of that element of the combination, and must be so considered. Therefore the one roller of defendant's recorder, with the impression band thereon, is the substitute for and equivalent of the "band movable longitudinally in either direction," and answers to that element including the two rollers; but it is not at the same time a substitute for and the equivalent of that other element of complainant's claim 1, "a platen actuated by said lever and pressing the band into contact with the time-printing wheels as set forth.” In truth defendant's time recorder has wholly omitted and dispensed with the platen of claim 1 of complainant's patent. Defendant does not use one element of the claim in suit, and does not infringe. In complainant's recorder, both rollers move up with the band to meet the time-printing wheels, or in another construction may remain stationary while the time-printing wheels come to them, or into the same line with their upper periphery; but the

the one roller of defendant's recorder. Dey was but no sense or degree a pioneer, and the range of allowis so narrow, and the defendant's recorder, in respect ents in question, is so plainly and distinctly differentiplainant's, that infringement is not made out. If I conception of the principle repeatedly declared by the of the United States and plainly and recently stated nairing Co. v. American Fur Refining Co., 198 U. S. 25 Sup. Ct. 697, 49 L. Ed. 1100, infringement is not his case. The syllabus of that case is as follows: gree of liberality and a wider range of equivalents are pere patent is of a pioneer character than when the invention is vement, although the last and successful step, in the art there

developed by other inventors in the same field. avolved in this case for the unhairing of seal and other skins, o protection as a valuable invention, cannot be said to be a

is claim the inventor is at liberty to choose his own form of , while the courts may construe the same in view of the specie state of the art, it may not add to or detract from the claim. ator is required to enumerate the elements of his claim, no one

of a combination claim, unless he uses all the elements thereof. patent does not embody a primary invention, but only an imthe prior art, the charge of infringement is not sustained, if achines can be differentiated."

nion, the court says: ining the construction to be given to the claim in suit, which is infringed, it is necessary to have in mind the nature of this patcter as a pioneer invention or otherwise, and the state of the art vhen the invention was made. It is well settled that a greater erality and a wider range of equivalents are permitted where the

a pioneer character than when the invention is simply an imnay be the last and successful step, in the art theretofore partial

by other inventors in the same field. Upon this subject it was s court, in Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co., 170 U. S. . Ct. 707. 42 L. Ed. 1136, quoted with approval in Singer Co. v. - U. S. 265, 24 Sup. Ct. 291, 48 L. Ed. 437: "To what liberality of

these claims are entitled depends to a certain extent upon the f the invention, and whether it is what is termed in ordinary paroneer." This word, although used somewhat loosely, is commonly to denote a patent covering a function never before performed, a el device, or one of such novelty and importance as to mark a disn the progress of the art, as distinguished from a mere improvement ion of what had gone before.'

In making his claim, or is at liberty to choose his own form of expression, and, while the y construe the same in view of the specifications and the state of ney may not add to or detract from the claim. And it is equally true e inventor is required to enumerate the elements of his claim, no one inger of a combination claim unless he uses all the elements thereard v. Carrigan, 116 U. S. 593, 597, 6 Sup. Ct. 493, 29 L. Ed. 723; Sutbiuson, 119 U. S. 130, 541, 7 Sup. Ct. 376, 30 L. Ed. 492; McClain v. ', 141 U. S. 419, 425, 12 Sup. Ct. 76, 35 L. Ed. 800; Wright v. YuengU. S. 47, 15 Sup. Ct. 1, 39 L. Ed. 64; Black Diamond Co. v. Excelsior U. S. 611, 617, 15 Sup. Ct. 482, 39 L. Ed. 553; Walker on Patents, $

in the recent case of Computing Scale Company of America matic Scale Company (decided by the Supreme Court February

25, 1907, not yet officially reported), 27 Sup. Ct. 307, 51 L. Ed. the court said:

"Conceding that this spiral rod and its connections with the cylinder in we inanner and for the purposes stated is a novel feature iu the combination and entitled to protection, it is of that narrow character of invention which does not entitle the patentee to any considerable range of equivalents, but must be practically limited to the means shown by the inventor. The distinction between pioneer inventions permitting a wide range of equivalents, and those inventions of a narrow character, which are limited to the construction shown, has been frequently emphasized in the decisions of this court. Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Fur Refining Co., 198 U. S. 399, 406, 23 Sup. Ct. 697, 49 L. El. 1100, and cases therein cited. Thus limiting the invention, we do not think the construction of the defendant amounts to an infringewent."


In view of a patent to said John Dey dated July 10, 1894, No. 522,784 (the patent in suit is dated August 7, 1894), and granted 27 days prior to the grant of the patent in suit, but applied for January 16, 1893, about two months after the filing of the application for the patent in suit (the patent in suit was applied for November 11, 1892), I do not see how it can be claimed that the single-roller construction, the roller carrying the band and doing the work of a platen, and used by defendant, is covered broadly, or otherwise, by claim 1 of the patent in suit. Having applied for the patent in suit November 11, 1893, and inserted claim 1 for the combination therein nientioned, including as a necessary and material element the specific platen described in the specifications, on the 16th day of January, 1893, 65 days later John Dey applied for another patent for workman's time recorder, consisting “more particularly in specific improvements of the construction and combination of the details of the apparatus as hereinafter fully described and set forth in the claims.” He then mentions the clock mechanism, the time-printing wheels, and then says:

“Beneath the minute-wheel, C, and hour-wheel, C', is the impression roller, R, mounted longitudinally movable on a shaft, a'!', which is parallel with the shaft of the said minute-wheel and journaled in vertically movable props, P, P, by which the roller, R, is lifted to cause the types of the wheels, C, C'. to make their impressions on the band of paper secured to the periphery of the roller. This paper has printed upon it consecutive numerals arranged in a row extending lengthwise of the paper, and I preferably wind one end thereof upon a spool, R’, mounted on the shaft, a'!, inside of the roller, R, which latter is formed hollow and provided with a transverse slot in its periphery, through which slot the paper band passes and thence around the external periphery of the roller and back through the aforesaid slot and is clamped or otherwise suitably fastened to the inner periphery of the roller, as illustrated in Fig. 3 of the drawings. At the end of each working day the portion of paper containing the records is removed from the roiler, R, and torn from the roll, and another section of paper is drawn out and applied to the exterior of the roller, R, in the manner as before described. The successive sections of the roll of paper are numbered alike."

To produce the impressions of the minute-wheel, 0, and hourwheel, C', upon the paper band mounted on the roller, R, the ink ribbon, i, is interposed between said wheels and paper.

In order to allow the recordings during different periods of the day to be made distinctly on the band of paper, I make the latter and its carrying roller, R, of sufficient width to allow the different times of recording to be printed in rows opposite the respective numbers marked on the paper, and to allow the roller to be shifted laterally and thus permit the printing to be done at different points in the width of the paper I mount said roller loosely on its shaft, a"'', and connect

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »