Reporter's Statement of the Case 6. The claims in suit are as follows:

1. A wheel comprising a rotatable part and two nonrotatable parts, said non-rotatable parts guided upon each other for vertical movement and wrapped by elastic material to resist the said movement, one of the said non-rotatable parts being secured to the axle.

2. In combination with a vehicle wheel, two nonrotatable, shock absorber parts and elastic bands resisting the separation of the said parts.

3. A resilient support for a wheel comprising two non-rotatable portions, substantially within the tire faces of the said wheel, directionally opposed parts of each of the said non-rotatable portions provided with flanges and rounded parts between the said flanges, and elastic bands wrapped around the said rounded parts and adapted to resist separation of the said parts.

4. A wheel comprising a non-rotatable body provided with a vertical guide way, a rotatable wheel part encircling said body, a non-rotatable wheel carrying member slidable in said guide way, and a plurality of detachable elastic loops to suspend said member from said body, said body and member being provided with smooth curved portions to engage within the loop ends of said elastic loops, said elastic loops being located between the planes of the side faces of the wheel.

Claims 1 and 2 do not contain the limiting phraseology directed to the location of the shock absorber elements within the tire faces or planes of the side faces of the wheel.

7. The types of aeroplane wheel structure used by the United States Government and alleged to infringe the patent in suit, are typified by the drawings forming defendant's exhibit 21 which is by reference made a part of this finding.

These types are identified therein as follows:

Verville-Sperry

Loening Amphibian

Curtiss R2C-1

Dayton-Wright Alert

Dayton-Wright Shipboard (WA)

The Government shock absorber and wheel construction, as disclosed in above-mentioned types, comprises a wheel consisting of a rotatable portion or element and provided with a tire on its periphery, this rotatable part being carried by a non-rotatable part. The axle portion of the

Reporter's Statement of the Case

structure which may be specified as a second non-rotatable part is mounted in a guide slot or is otherwise provided with suitable guiding means to provide for a substantially vertical relative movement between the two non-rotatable parts.

This vertical movement is resisted by elastic bands wrapped around rounded portions of the two non-rotatable parts, these elastic elements functioning to permit a yielding under heavy loads or shocks.

In all of the types above referred to, the shock absorbing structure is located between the planes of the side faces of the wheels. Drawings with explanatory legends illustrating the Curtiss R2C-1 type are reproduced herewith.

Apart from minor structural details the other alleged infringing types listed above are of this same general

nature.

8. The terminology of the claims in suit reads upon all of the structures referred to in the previous finding.

9. During the trial of this case, plaintiff disclaimed infringement by the following structures shown in plaintiff's exhibit 17a which is by reference made a part of this finding.

Dayton-Wright Alert Plane, Type 1 (plaintiff's exhibit 17a, p. 7).

Curtiss Cr 1 and 2 Racers (plaintiff's exhibit 17a, p. 6). Curtiss PW8 Plane (plaintiff's exhibit 17a, pp. 10, 11). Altitude Record Plane XC05A (plaintiff's exhibit 17a, pp. 12, 13).

10. The prior art cited by the Patent Office during the prosecution of the application which materialized into the patent in suit was as follows:

British patent #8020, issued in 1895 to Lawson Adams. British patent #25169, issued in 1899 to W. P. Thompson. United States patent #322188, issued July 14, 1885, to C. W. Long.

United States patent #1167307, issued January 4, 1916, to F. J. McCandless.

United States patent #1193639, issued August 8, 1916, to G. W. Walk.

Copies of these patents, defendant's exhibits 7b, 7c, 7d, 7e, and 7f, are by reference made a part of this finding.

Reporter's Statement of the Case

11. The following additional prior art patents and publications were available to those skilled in the art prior to the filing of the application which materialized into the patent in suit:

Prior Art Patents

United States patent #1162177, issued November 30, 1915, to G. C. Loening (defendant's exhibits 8C and 9C).

United States patent #812143, issued February 6, 1906, to W. M. Leffort (defendant's exhibits 8R and 9R).

United States patent #1041097, issued October 15, 1912, to C. L. Kennedy (defendant's exhibits 8S and 9S).

United States patent #1094259, issued April 21, 1914 to S. Scognamillo (defendant's exhibits 8T and 9T).

United States patent #1163509, issued December 7, 1915, to N. Cornfield (defendant's exhibits 8U and 9U).

United States patent #1049280, issued December 31, 1912, to G. Sturgess (defendant's exhibits 8-0 and 9-0).

United States patent #1179974, issued April 18, 1916, to J. E. Strietelmeier (defendant's exhibits 8G and 9G).

United States patent #1316279, issued September 16, 1919, to G. H. Curtiss (defendant's exhibit 19N).

British patent #21360, 1911, issued to F. W. Lanchester (defendant's exhibits 8E and 9E).

British patent #6461, 1912, issued to N. A. Thompson (defendant's exhibits 8F and 9F).

Publications

Flight, of October 19, 1912, pages 942, 943 (defendant's exhibits 8D and 9D).

Aeronautical Journal, April 1911, pages 90, 92 (defendant's exhibits 8P and 9P).

Aviation, of September 1, 1916, pages 78–82, inclusive (defendant's exhibits 8Q and 9Q).

Aerial Age Weekly, of June 5, 1916, page 365 (defendant's exhibits 8H and 9H).

Aerial Age Weekly, of August 21, 1916, page 691 (defendant's exhibit 19B).

The Aeroplane, of September 6, 1916, pages 398, 402, 408 (defendant's exhibit 19C).

Flight, of September 7, 1916, page 764 (defendant's exhibit 19D).

Reporter's Statement of the Case

Jane's All The World's Aircraft, 1917, pages 228B and 229B (defendant's exhibit 19E).

Aerial Age Weekly, of June 4, 1917, page 379 (defendant's exhibits 8-I, 9-I, and 19A).

Aerial Age Weekly, of June 18, 1917 (defendant's exhibits 8J and 9J).

Aviation, of August 1, 1917, pages 39 and 40 (defendant's exhibits 8K and 9K).

Aerial Age Weekly, of August 20, 1917, page 833 (defendant's exhibits 8L and 9L).

Copies of the above, defendant's exhibits as indicated, are by reference made a part of this finding.

12. In connection with a consideration of the prior art, attention is directed to the fact that the specification of the patent in suit defines the elastic bands or elastic material, referred to in finding 5 and in the claims in suit set forth in finding 6, as follows:

To yieldingly support the axle within its guides 6 in the wheel web, a plurality of endless elastic bands 25 or members of other suitable resilient material and construction are supported and carried upon the wheel web or body by passing suitable rolls 26 through the looped ends 27 of the bands

*

Webster's New International Dictionary (1912) defines the terms "elastic" and "resilient" as follows:

Elastic expansive; propulsive; springing back; springy; of solids, capable of recovering size and shape after deformation.

Resilient-leaping back; rebounding; recoiling; returning to, or resuming, the original position or shape; possessing resilience; specif.: (Mech.) of a body, capable of withstanding sudden shock without permanent deformation or rupture.

There is no limitation expressed in the patent in suit as to the use of rubber as the elastic or resilient material.

13. Prior art wheels of the same general type as the wheel in the patent in suit are shown in the following patents: United States patent to Walk, #1193639, August 8, 1916 (defendant's exhibit 7F).

United States patent to Cornfield, #1163509, December 7, 1915 (defendant's exhibit 8U).