Reporter's Statement of the Case

United States patent to Scognamillo, #1094259, April 21, 1914 (defendant's exhibit 8T).

United States patent to Leffort, #812143, February 6, 1906 (defendant's exhibit 8R).

These patents disclose a wheel structure comprising a rotatable part and two non-rotatable parts guided upon each other for relative vertical movement by means of a vertical guide slot (or its structural equivalent) and resilient or elastic means comprising metal springs for resisting said movement, with all of the elements substantially located between the planes of the side faces of the wheel.

Figures 1 and 2 of the Leffort patent are herewith reproduced as illustrative of this prior art structure:

W. M. LEFFORT.

SPRING HUB FOR VEHICLES.

APPLICATION FILED SEPT. 80, 1005.

134281-39-c. c.-Vol. 88--14

FIG. 2,

Reporter's Statement of the Case

The structure specified by the claims of the patent in suit differs from the disclosure contained in these patents only in the designated use of "wrapped elastic material" or "elastic bands" wrapped around rounded parts as the shock absorbing element instead of the spiral elastic springs.

14. The prior use of wrapped elastic material or an elastic band as the shock absorbing element in connection with aeroplane landing gear structure, is disclosed in the following prior art patent and publication:

United States patent to Loening, #1162177, November 30, 1915 (defendant's exhibit 8C).

Page 942 of the publication entitled "Flight," in the issue of October 19, 1912 (defendant's exhibit 8D).

This patent and publication both illustrate and describe a shock absorber construction for aeroplane landing gear with the shock absorbing element located between the axle and the landing gear chassis adjacent the wheel. The shock absorbing device in each instance comprises two non-rotatable portions, i. e., the axle and the chassis frame. The directionally opposed parts of each of these non-rotatable portions are provided with rounded parts and have elastic bands wrapped around the rounded parts in such manner as to resist separation of these two portions.

The patent to Loening discloses the two non-rotatable parts guided upon each other for a movement which is substantially vertical.

15. Such type of prior art construction as set forth in finding 14 is found exemplified by the shock absorber used on aeroplanes designated as the Curtiss CR1 and CR2. This construction which is shown diagrammatically on a following page also involves the use of an elastic cord wrapped about two non-rotatable members guided upon each other for substantially vertical movement and composed respectively of the axle shaft and the chassis members adjacent the wheel.

16. The relative advantages and disadvantages of elastic cords of rubber as compared to metallic springs for shock absorbers on aeroplanes were well known prior to the filing of the application which matured into the patent in suit, and

Reporter's Statement of the Case

are fully set forth in an article by J. C. Hunsaker contained on pages 78 to 82, inclusive, of the publication entitled "Aviation," in the issue of September 1, 1916 (defendant's exhibit 8Q).

The utilization of either rubber cords or metal springs with their associated mountings was within the choice of those skilled in the art.

17. A wheel, known as the Ackerman aeroplane wheel, was in public use on aeroplanes in 1916. This wheel formed the basis of the patent to Strietelmeier issued April 18, 1916 (defendant's exhibit 8G), and as disclosed in said patent and used on said aeroplanes, comprised a rotatable rim carrying a tire, which rim was connected to a rotating hub-member by means of a plurality of loop-like steel spring spokes emerging radially in straight portions at the point of attachment of the hub and converging in pairs to the point of attachment at the rim.

The resilient or shock-absorbing spokes are all located within the planes of the sides of the wheel and the efficacy of such structure in minimizing wind resistance was known to those skilled in the art prior to the date of the patent in suit, and was specifically referred to in this connection in an article on the Ackerman wheels on page 833 of the publication entitled "Aerial Age Weekly" in the issue of August 20, 1917 (defendant's exhibit 8L), in which article it was stated:

A further advantage is the presentation of minimum projected area and consequential dead head-resistance. The desirability of low head-resistance in the chassis, as well as unfailing resistance to breakage, makes these wheels especially adaptable to scouts of high landingspeeds. The wheels are, however, made in sizes suitable for all types of aeroplanes from the light scout to the heavy battleplane.

18. To substitute an elastic material or elastic bands wrapped around rounded parts for the elastic or resilient metal springs in the prior art wheels of the type referred to in finding 13, or to relocate the rubber shock absorber of the Curtiss type CR1 and CR2 (finding 15) within the plane of the wheel, would require only mechanical skill and would not contribute any new or unexpected result to the art.

Reporter's Statement of the Case

The claims in suit are invalid for lack of invention in

view of the prior art.

19. On March 28, 1919, the plaintiff, James V. Martin, sent a letter to the Secretary of War, which letter reads as follows:

To the SECRETARY OF WAR,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: Kindly place this letter on file as a record of my bonafide offer acceptable now or at any time in the future to give or sell for one dollar ($1.00) each to the United States War Department for Army use, the following airplane efficiency features which as your records will show, have been freely at your disposal during the war.

The Retractable Chassis.

Shaft drive aeroplane power transmission.
The K-bar cellule Truss.

The Rubber Strand Shockabsorbing Wheel.
The Shockabsorbing Rudder.

The Martin form of Wing end.

The Wing end double convex aileron.

The Aerodynamic Control.

The M. I, II, III, & IV Aerofoils.

The Wing end direction moment device.

The diaphragm from wing to aileron or fuselage to Rudder.

The Perfect Type Plane #1.

Please also note and file the attached correspondence which will serve as a record of my vain efforts to secure Army approval for these features of inevitable future airplane design.

I am informed from sources which may or may not be reliable that the real reason my efforts to introduce the above features are thwarted, is because of the influence of certain powerful financial interests that tried to buy my patent rights in the devices with the intention. of selling the same to our Government at a handsome profit.

Since the interests in question have failed to induce me to depart from my patriotic policy of giving these devices to our Government for Government use, it is affirmed that they, the interests, have so influenced officials in charge of airplane design work as to discourage my efforts and force me to seek other fields of endeavor until such time as the interests identified with an air