Cincinnati Milling Machine Co. v. Turchan

E.D. Michigan

Cincinnati Milling Machine Co. v. Turchan

101 F. Supp. 621, 89 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 245, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2095

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan

DecidedApril 3, 1951

DocketCiv. A. No. 5941

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 101 F. Supp. 621 (Cincinnati Milling Machine Co. v. Turchan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cincinnati Milling Machine Co. v. Turchan, 101 F. Supp. 621, 89 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 245, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2095 (E.D. Mich. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

LEVIN, District Judge.

The complaint in this action alleges infringement of seven patents. During the hearing complaint with respect to three of them was withdrawn, and subsequent to the ■close of the hearing, the parties stipulated that the defendant’s counterclaim for a •declaratory judgment and the motion of the plaintiff to dismiss it be considered at a later time, and that the present determination be limited to the issues raised in connection with the following claims:

1. Claims 13, 15, 18, 24, 33, 38, 46, 57, ■60, 67, 72, 73"of Anderson patent No. 1,-•952,230.

2. Claims 9, 12, 13 of Wall patent No. 1,997,890.

3. Claims 13, 14, 25 of Wall patent No. 2,051,430.

4. Claim 16 of Roehm patent No. 2,-€68,889.

There are over five thousand pages ■of transcript, over two hundred fifty exhibits including the prior art references, and •extensive briefs numbering hundreds of ■pages. A study of this material leaves me with the view that the claims of the Anderson patent and the two Wall patents are ■not infringed by the defendant’s devices. They do not embody the structures disclosed and claimed in the patents, nor are they the mechanical equivalents thereof. In view of this holding and the stipulation I do not deem it appropriate to make findings with respect to the validity of these claims and the case of Sinclair & Carroll ■Co., Inc. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 S.Ct. 1143, 89 L.Ed. 1644, is not ■construed as a mandate that I do so.

Claim 16 of the Roehm patent is found invalid, under the patent statutes, 35 U.S. ■C.A. § 33, for lack of disclosure.

Plaintiff, Cincinnati Milling Machine ■Company, is one of the world’s largest manufacturers of machine tools. A substantial part of its 'business is the manufacture and sale of various types of hydraulically controlled milling machines and hydraulic attachments which, when installed on existing machine tools, converts such tools to hydraulic operation for the automatic duplication of irregular surfaces in metal. Defendant Turchan manufactures and sells only such hydraulic attachments for existing machines.

The four patents all relate' to the art of mechanically reproducing on a workpiece the shape or form of a pattern. The reproduction is produced by means of a tracer which travels over the pattern and controls the movement of the cutter over the workpiece so that the cutter will respond in its movements exactly to the movements of the tracer. Two generic types of reproduction in this manner are encountered, one known as contouring, as shown in Anderson, and the other known as relief work or die sinking whereby projections and depressions may be reproduced, as shown in both Wall and Roehm.

For many years prior to the issuance of. the patents here under consideration milling machines have been employed to shape metal parts. All milling machines have a rotating cutter to remove chips from metal, and usually have three slides, a longitudinal slide that supports and moves the work back and forth beneath the cutter, a cross feed slide that permits crosswise relative movement between the cutter and work, and a vertical slide so that the cutter and work may be moved toward or away from each other. Various mechanisms are used for propelling the slides of the machine, which are either hand or power operated or a combination of both. Under the hand control of a skilled operator these machines, even without auxiliary equipment, are capable of producing work of irregular geometric surfaces, but this is an expensive time consuming operation.

There has always been a need in industry for a machine tool which could automatically duplicate in' metal complex shapes, accurately and at low cost. This need was greatly accelerated by the growth of the [624]*624automobile and aircraft industries, both of which require irregularly shaped and accurately machined parts in large quantities.

One of the early methods of reproduction utilized hand profilers and cam operated machines, both of which are operated on the same general principle. Hand profilers have a follower held against the pattern by the operator so' that the operator may move the tracer over the surface of the pattern. The cutter which is fixed to the same slide as the tracer, produces a similar shape in the work. Hand profilers, however, are arduous to operate because the operator is compelled to hold the tracer against the surface of the master with the same pressure at all times and the difficulty of maintaining this pressure leads to errors in the work. In the cam operated machine a spring is employed to force the tracer and cutter against both the pattern and workpiece so that, as the table moves'the pattern under the tracer and the work under the cutter, the cutter is forced to. follow the same path in the work as is being traversed by the tracer on the surface of the pattern. These machines, however, do not furnish a solution to the problem of reproducing, without constant and laborious attention, machine parts which meet exacting tolerances.

Long before Anderson received his patent, patents were issued for other devices which reproduce mechanically a pattern form on a workpiece, although not necessarily in metal. In 1902 Bontempi, U.S. Patent 709,388, disclosed a machine whereby the tracer, when moved over the pattern by hand, would, in response to projections or depressions in the pattern, operate a hydraulic valve which would in turn control hydraulic cylinders for effecting relative movements of the cutter with respect to the workpiece. Higgins U.S.Patent 736,726, issued in the same year, shows a pattern mounted on a work table and hydraulic means for effecting relative movement between work and cutter. Pierce U.S. Patent 827,993 issued on August 7, 1906, and British Patent to Lorant, No. 25,939 issued in 1902, were two of several other patents for devices of similar character which were allowed during the next twenty years.

In 1921 Keller, U. S. Patent 1,379,267, was issued for a pneumatically operated machine for reproducing in metal irregularly shaped parts wherein a tracer responds to the surface of a pattern controlling a valve for regulating the pressure of a fluid (compressed air) delivered to one end of a cylinder.

Shaw, U. S. Patent 1,683,581 and Loch-man, U. S. Patent 1,774,279 relate to electrically operated tracers wherein the tracer point, as it travels over the pattern, energizes electrical switches which, in turn,, cause the cutting tool to move in the same path as the tracer. Other machines embodying this principle appeared subsequently.

With Anderson, the plaintiff found an automatic hydraulic tracer controlled machine which overcame to a large extent certain deficiencies of earlier devices, and which provided a relatively accurate method of reproducing irregularly shaped metal parts in mass production without the supervision of a skilled operator.

The Anderson patent was applied for on August 1, 1927, and was granted on March 27, 1934. The object of the invention is stated as:

“ * * * to provide a milling machine that will automatically cut irregular shapes in metal with only the assistance of a master or template of the desired outline which is. to be duplicated.

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