Donner v. American Sheet & Tin Plate Co.

160 F. 971, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5087
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania
DecidedApril 24, 1908
DocketNo. 22,
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 160 F. 971 (Donner v. American Sheet & Tin Plate Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Donner v. American Sheet & Tin Plate Co., 160 F. 971, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5087 (circtwdpa 1908).

Opinion

ARCH BARD, District’ Judge.1

So far as the bill proceeds for the cancellation of the alleged interfering claims of the Bray patent, it is clear that it cannot be sustained. To make out a case under section 4918 of the Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3894), where this is provided for, there must be actual conflict, and not mere infringement. Gold Ore Separating Co. v. United States Disintegrating Co., 6 Blatchf. 307, Fed. Cas. No. 5,508; Mfg. Co. v. Craig (C. C.) 49 Fed. 370. Otherwise, whenever a defendant justified under a patent, and was found to infringe, a cancellation could be ordered, even though the infringing patent was for a valuable improvement, which, subject to the principal invention, the patentee had a perfect right to maintain. It has therefore been held that the interference, authorizing a cancellation, does not exist between a patent, having a dominant, broad, claim, and a later one, having a subordinate, specific claim. Stonemetz Machinery Co. v. Brown Machine Co. (C. C.) 57 Fed. 601; Brown Co. v. Stonemetz Mach. Co., 58 Fed. 571, 7 C. C. A. 374. Nor, unless the claims in controversy cover the same mechanical construction or device. Simplex Railway Appliance Co. v. Wands, 115 Fed. 517, 53 C. C. A. 171. And in determining whether there is an interference, within the meaning of the statute, the court cannot go beyond the claims [972]*972as to which this is charged, so as to consider the patent as a whole. Mfg. Co. v. Craig (C. C.) 49 Fed. 370. Stonemetz Machinery Co. v. Brown Machine Co. (C. C.) 57 Fed. 601.

In the present instance, comparison is made between claim 4 of the Donner (complainant’s) patent, and claims 6 and 10 of the Bray, both relating to a mill for the rolling of black plate; the former of which (claim 4) is, in terms, for “a continuous train in which two of the sets of rolls are sufficiently removed from each other to allow the 'bars or sheets to be matched between” the said rolls; while the latter (claim 6) is for “a combination with two pairs of reducing rolls arranged in tandem, of a matching device located between and in line with the rolls” the matcher being provided with suitable stop mechanism; and (claim 10) for “a continuous mill having a series of sets of rolls arranged in tandem and matching mechanism interposed between two of the sets.” Conceding, of. necessity, that these claims are much alike, dealing with the same general idea as they do, they nevertheless differ in the way of treating it, to such an extent that a cancellation of either of them is not warranted. Critically analyzed, Donner simply calls for a matching pass or space in which to match; while Bray declares, in the one claim, for a matcher or matching device with suitable stop mechanism, and in the other for matching mechanism or means to effect the matching, without more. However closely they may thus approach each other, patentably considered, they are not the same, the one being directed to a place where matching can be done, and the other to the means for bringing it about. • It may be that, having regard to the scope of the invention as disclosed by the specifications, matching mechanism is to be read into the Donner claim, of which more anon. But taking it as it stands, as at present we must, while the fact of matching is no doubt involved in it, the same as in the claims of the Bray, each is concerned with a different phase, which, on an application to cancel, is to be regarded as distinct. Even if this were not so, and the Donner is to be. taken as though matching mechanism were actually expressed, this necessarily would be of the same general character as that described in the specifications, and the same being true of that called for in the Bray, the simple stop fingers of the one are not to be identified with the highly organized arrangement provided for in the other, however they may both lead to the same result. The case is therefore to be disposed of, entirely aside from the question of interference, on the validity of the complainant’s patent and the infringement charged.

As already stated, the patent in suit relates to the rolling of black plate, which is the basis of commercial tin, and is much thinner than ordinary sheet. According to the art previously practiced for nearly 200 years and which is still in extended use, the metal, in the form of heated bars, of about the width intended for the finished sheet is fed back and forth, two following each other at a time, between plain faced, adjustable rolls, arranged in single stands, two rolls high, and tended by three workmen, a feeder or rougher, and a catcher, to actually handle the metal, and a skilled roller or watcher, to oversee the whole. After [973]*973each passage of the metal through the rolls, the rolls are screwed closer together, until the sheet has been brought down to what is known as a matching thickness, which is usually after the fourth reduction, upon which two or more of the sheets are seized by the workmen with tongs and put together into a pack, and in this shape, with or without reheating, they are again rolled, on the same or another stand, the rolling in packs, by reason of the extra pressure so secured, having the effect of reducing the sheets in a way that nothing else will. If required to be reduced to a still lower gage; the sheets are pulled apart, so as to prevent their sticking or welding — a fruitful source of trouble —and after having been doubled over like a sheet of paper are again reheated and rolled, and for extreme reduction, they may be redoubled and rolled again. Finally, when all has been • accomplished that is desired in this direction, the sheets are put singly through smoothing rolls to give them a superficial finish. Between each of the original reductions or passes, the rolls have to be carefully adjusted for the next turn, for which service a person with especial skill, to watch or “nurse” them, is required, the heat imparted by the metal being an element to be reckoned with, and often affecting the rolls unequally, spoiling the sheets. The packs also, on being put into the furnace with others which are hotter, tend to draw down the temperature of the latter and cool or harden them, which has likewise to be carefully considered and attended to. These are some, but by no means all, of the difficulties involved in the process, which in all its phases is a delicate one calling for the skill of trained and high-priced workmen. Preserving the essential steps of it, the complainant claims to have arranged for its successful performance on a series of rolls, set in tandem or continuous train, the heated metal, instead of being reduced on single stand rolls, which have to be adjusted after each 'reduction, being passed on from one pair of rolls to another, by means of a conveyor or moving table, each pair being set to do the particular work assigned to it, and being kept at the proper temperature or contour for doing so, by virtue of the uniform heat of the bars or sheets which are fed to it in a regular and continuous manner. Being the first to make use in this way of continuous rolling for the manufacture of sheet plate, contrary to the prevailing view as to its practicability, and claiming to have thereby made a radical departure in the plate rolling art, the complainant asks to be protected in the patent which he has obtained for it, against which it is charged that the defendants infringe.

The character of the invention, and the objects sought to be accomplished by it, will be best shown by reference to the specifications, where, after describing, the hand method, with single stand rolls, previously pursued, and the disadvantages of it, it is said by the inventor:

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

Related

Dooley Improvements, Inc. v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
28 F. Supp. 531 (District of Columbia, 1939)
Kelly Well Co. v. Kirschke Concrete Well Co.
14 F.2d 274 (Eighth Circuit, 1926)
Donner v. American Sheet & Tin Plate Co.
165 F. 199 (Third Circuit, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
160 F. 971, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donner-v-american-sheet-tin-plate-co-circtwdpa-1908.