Alma Motor Co. v. United States

134 F. Supp. 659, 133 Ct. Cl. 91, 107 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 97, 1955 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 76
United States Court of Claims·Decided October 4, 1955·No. No. 48716·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Liitleton, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a suit for patent infringement. Plaintiff alleges that its patent 2,145,089 was infringed by the United States ■through its War and Navy Departments which caused to be manufactured, purchased, and used, during the years 1942 to 1946, numerous trucks and vehicles equipped with front wheel drive constructions. It is contended that these constructions embodied inventions covered by claims 4 and 10 of plaintiff’s patent.

Patent 2,145,089 was issued to Karl D. Kysor on January :24, 1939, on an application filed on April 20, 1936, and is entitled “Front Wheel Drive For Automotive Vehicles.” 'Title to this patent is not in question since the parties agree that the plaintiff is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest to the Kysor patent in suit.

In general, the patent in suit discloses a construction comprising a front axle assembly employing a constant velocity •universal joint between an axle shaft and a stub shaft. A wheel spindle, housing the stub shaft, is pivotally supported by a housing for the axle shaft, and a front wheel is rotat-ably secured on the wheel spindle. The axis of the pivotal •connection between the wheel spindle and the housing for the axle shaft extends through the center of the universal joint and at an angle toward the wheel tread. The wheel is driven by the stub shaft. This construction provides a full-floating axle front wheel drive wherein none of the ■vehicle weight is carried by the axle shaft or the stub shaft.1

The two claims in suit are as follows:

Claim 4—
1. A front wheel drive for automotive vehicles comprising
2. an axle housing having a semi-spherical end,
[94]*943. a wheel spindle having a semi-spherical end,
4. a wheel mounted on the spindle, _
_ 5. pivot pins connecting the semi-spherical ends of the axle housing and wheel spindle,
6. a shaft rotatably mounted in the axle housing,
7. a stub shaft rotatably mounted in the wheel spindle,
8. a universal joint connecting the axle shaft and stub shaft,
9. a ball socketed between the ends of the axle shaft and stub shaft and within the semi-spherical ends of the axle housing and wheel spindle, the pivot pins between the semi-spherical ends of the axle housing and the wheel spindle preventing separation of the parts,
10. and means for adjusting the stub shaft toward the axle shaft to -firmly emgage the hall between the ends of the axle shaft and the stub shaft and the axis of the pivot pins extending through the center of the ball and at an angle toward the wheel tread. [Italics supplied.]
Claim 10—
1. A front wheel drive for automotive vehicles comprising
2. an axle housing having a semi-spherical end,
3. an axle shaft therein,
4. a wheel spindle having a semi-spherical end engaging over the semi-spherical end of the axle housing,
5. a stub shaft housed by the wheel spindle,
6. a wheel and a tire supported by the spindle,
7. pivot pins supported in the semi-spherical end of the wheel spindle and pivotally engaging the semi-spherical end of the axle housing,
8. a universal joint connecting the axle shaft and stub shaft positioned within the semi-spherical end of the axle housing, the center point of the universal joint being at one side of the plane occupied by the inner side of the wheel and the axial line extending between the pivot pins passing through the center of the universal joint and intersecting the tire adjacent the road surface,
9. and adjustable means preventing relative longitudinal movement of the axle shaft and the stub shaft to constantly maintain the turning center of the universal joint on the axial line extending between the pivot pins. [Italics supplied.]

We agree with the commissioner’s finding 6 that claim 10 is invalid since all the elements listed are disclosed in prior patents. Elements 1 through 8 of claim 10 are clearly disclosed in the United States patent to B. W. Keese, No. [95]*951,995,987, issued March 26,1935. The Keese patent discloses a front wheel drive comprising an axle housing having a semi-spherical end, an axle shaft therein, a wheel spindle having a semi-spherical end engaging over the semi-spherical end of the axle housing, a stub shaft housed by the wheel spindle, a wheel and tire supported by the spindle, pivot pins pivotally engaging the semi-spherical end of the wheel spindle and supported in the semi-spherical end of the axle housing, a universal joint connecting the axle shaft and the stub shaft and positioned within the semi-spherical end of the axle housing, the center point of the universal joint being at one side of the plane occupied by the inner side of the wheel, and the axial line extending between the pivot pins passing through the center of the universal joint and intersecting the tire adjacent the road surface, and means, cap, bolt,- sleeve, and flange,, preventing relative longitudinal movement of the axle shaft and the stub shaft to constantly maintain the turning center of the universal joint on the axial line extending between the pivot pins.

It is noted that element 7 of claim 10 of the patent in suit discloses pivot pins supported m the semi-spherical end of the wheel spindle and pivotally engaging the semi-spherical end of the axle housing while the Keese patent discloses pivot pins pivotally engaging the semi-spherical end of the wheel spindle and supported in the semi-spherical end of the axle housing. Plaintiff has emphasized this distinction in the two patents. However, we feel that this difference is inconsequential in the present case. The selection of either of these two alternate or reversed mountings is merely a mechanic’s choice, totally lacking in invention. A mere reversal of parts or change in proportions is not usually considered sufficient to constitute achievement of invention. Ronning Machinery Co. et al. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 129 F. (2d) 70, 72; cert. denied, 317 U. S. 670. Thus elements 1 through 8 of claim 10 are anticipated by the Keese patent.

In element 9 of claim 10 of the patent in suit the means preventing relative longitudinal movement of the axle shaft and the stub shaft are described as being adjustable while [96]*96the means employed for this purpose in tbe Keese patent are not so described. However, adjustable means for the same purpose were known prior to the effective date of the patent in suit. The United States patent to H. M. Boyd, No. 1,268,208, issued June 4,1918, discloses-that a bolt is adjusted in the stub shaft so that the collar on the bolt abutting against .a flange will hold the universal joint with its center in line with the axes of the pivot pins. Furthermore, in the United .States patent to C. T. Bangs, No. 1,274,840, issued August 6, 1918, an abutment screw is described as adapted to effect a longitudinal

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Alma Motor Co. v. United States, 134 F. Supp. 659, 133 Ct. Cl. 91, 107 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 97, 1955 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 76 (cc 1955).

134 F. Supp. 659 (Alma Motor Co. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related