American Laundry Machinery Mfg. Co. v. Troy Laundry Machinery Co.

171 F. 870, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5652
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York·Decided July 21, 1909·No. No. 7,193·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

RAY, District Judge.

As the defense possessing merit is that complainant’s device or machine, in view of the prior art, fails to disclose patentable invention, and is therefore void, I shall confine myself to a description and consideration of the device of complainant and the patent in suit and to the prior art and its effect op the patent in suit here. The letters patent in suit were granted to Fred C. Wendell. January 12, 1892, upon an application filed March 30, 1891, for an ironing-machine. The proofs show title in the complainant company and plain infringement, if the patent be valid.

The specifications say:

“My invention relates to machines for ironing bed and table linen, and has as its primary object the construction of a simple machine of great capacity adapted to deliver the fabrics with smooth-finished surfaces and in a thoroughly dry condition. Heretofore machines of this character have generally been constructed with a hollow steam-heated drum combined either with ironing-rolls acting to confine the fabrics thereon, or with an endless belt partly encircling the drum for the same purpose. My invention is directed to the full .and complete utilization of the heating surface o. the drum and to the delivery of the fabric in a perfectly dry .condition at a convenient point. In constructing my machine I combine with the heating-drum a series of overlying co-operating rolls, which press the advancing fabric into intimate contact with the drum, and also an endless belt, which encircles the drum on the opposite side from the rollers, so that after the fabric is acted upon by the rolls it is carried around the remaining portion of the drum by the belt, being thus subjected during tlie secondary part of the operation to a further drying action. Inasmuch as the belt serves to carry the fabrics back to that side of [871]*871the drum on which they wore introduced, and as it is inconvenient to have them delivered into and out of the machine on the same side, 1 propose to combine with the belt: or apron above mentioned a second endless belt, or other suitable carrier, adapted to return the finished fabrics to the rear side of the machine and there deliver them.
“It will bo obvious to the skilled mechanic that the details of my construction are not of tlio essence of my invention, and that they may be modified at will, provided only the drum is combined with the rolls and the aprons in such maimer that they act successively to confine the fabrics, upon the drum and carry them completely around the same, or nearly so. * * * E represents a basket, table, or other support at the front of the machine, from which the fabrics are delivered between the surface of the drum and the first roll, C, As the drum revolves, the fabric is carried forward therewith under the successive rolls until it arrives at the rear side of the drum. I5y this time the fabric, which has been subjected to a high heat and to considerable pressure and entirely exposed to permit the escape of the vaporized moisture, is comparatively dry and presents a smooth surface. In passing the last roll at the rear, the fabric continues its downward course and is carried between the apron, D. and the surface of the drum under the latter and up to the front of the machine. In this passage under ihe drum the fabric is subjected to a further drying influence, so that on delivery at the front it is in a thoroughly dried condition. The delivery of the fabric over the front end of the apron is insured by the presence of a beveled doffer-bar, I, which may, however, be-replaced by any suitable device. * * *
‘It will be observed that in my machine I utilize the heated surface of nearly the entire circumference of the drum, so that when a drum of reasonably large size is used the fabrics are quickly and thoroughly ironed and dried m passing once through the machine. It will also lie observed that ihe belt covering the under side of the drum prevents the loss of heat which ordinarily occurs by radiation from uncovered drums. It will be observed that in my machine the ironing-rolls. Instead of being geared to the drum, as usual, are driven by frictional contact with the intervening fabric. This is found in practice to be of decided advantage, as the rollers, turning somewhat slower than the drum, act with a frictional effect to retard the advance of the fabric while it is being subjected io the polishing action of the drum. I also find it advantageous to make the rolls of successively increasing diameter, preferably by giving the felt covering ail increased thickness, and to adjust: them so that they boar successively with increasing pressure on the drum. I find that when 11ms proportioned and adjusted, and when driven from the drum by the frictional ei'feev, of the intervening fabric, instead of being driven by gearing, each roll will turn at. slightly higher speed than the one next in advance. The result of this is that the rolls act to draw or stretch out: the fabric, keeping Hie same under tension, so that the drum acts to give them a smoother and better finish than when the rolls are positively driven, as usual.”

Claims 1 to 4, inclusive, are in issue, and read:

“1. In an ironing-machine, the combination of a hollow drum, a series of rolls co-operating with the periphery of the drum on one side, and a traveling apron co-operating with the periphery of the drum on the opposite side and arranged to automatically receive the fabric from the Vast roll and return it in contact with the drum toward the side of the machine at which it entered, whereby the fabric is automatically subjected, first to the action of the successive ironing-rolls, and thereafter to the heating and drying action of the drum.
“2. In an ironing-machine, the combination of the rotary steam-heated metallic drum, the series of felt-covered rolls acting upon its upper surface, the-endless apron surrounding its under surface, and means, substantially as described, for driving said apron.
“3. In combination with the steam-heated metallic drum, the series of overlying rollers covered with felt, the endless apron encircling the lower portion of the drum to return the fabric to the front of the machine, and the second apron or carrier co-operating with the first to return the fabric to and deliver it to the rear of the machine.
[872]*872“4. In an ironing-machine, in combination with a rotary steam-heated, drum and means, substantially as described, for maintaining the fabrics in contact with the drum throughout substantially its entire circumference that they may return to a point near the point of introduction, a secondary carrier to deliver the fabrics after leaving the drum to the rear of the machine.”

The first claim calls for the combination, in an ironing-machine, of: (1). A hollow drum; (2) a series of rolls co-operating with the periphery of the drum on one side of such drum; (3) a traveling apron co-operating with the periphery of the drum on the other side thereof so arranged as to automatically receive the fabric from the last roll and return it in contact with the drum towards the side of the machine at which it entered, whereby the fabric is automatically subjected, first to the action of the successive ironing-rolls, and thereafter to the heating and drying action of the drum. This implies a heated drum, for I think it would be going far afield to surmise that the heating action of the drum is caused by friction.

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

American Laundry Machinery Mfg. Co. v. Troy Laundry Machinery Co., 171 F. 870, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5652 (circtndny 1909).

171 F. 870 (American Laundry Machinery Mfg. Co. v. Troy Laundry Machinery Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anakin Lock Works v. Dillon Lock Works
283 F. 629 (N.D. Iowa, 1922)
Luten v. Allen
254 F. 587 (D. Kansas, 1918)
Turner v. Lauter Piano Co.
248 F. 930 (Third Circuit, 1918)