Elliott Mach. Co. v. P. B. Appeldoorn's Sons Co.

267 F. 983, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 2261
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedJune 8, 1920
DocketNo. 3367
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 267 F. 983 (Elliott Mach. Co. v. P. B. Appeldoorn's Sons Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Elliott Mach. Co. v. P. B. Appeldoorn's Sons Co., 267 F. 983, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 2261 (6th Cir. 1920).

Opinions

WESTENHAVER, District Judge.

This is a suit for infringement of United States letters patent No. 799,549, issued to William E. Elliott, September 12, 1905. The defenses are invalidity and noninfringement. The court below, being of opinion that claim 4, the only one in issue, should be limited to the specific construction therein described and claimed, held that' it was not infringed and dismissed the bill. From this decree, plaintiff appeals.

[984]*984Elliott’s patent is for certain improvements in a class of button-setting machines which are operated by foot or other power, and in which the .buttons are fed from a hopper or chute to the clinching anvil or die. This machine is particularly adapted to attach buttons to shoes by means of wire staples, which are automatically formed in the machine from a spool or coil of wire. The buttons are delivered from a hopper into a chute, down which they slide in a single-file column to the wire-receiving position. The button-feeding mechanism is adapted to take the first button from the column, push it into a wire-receiving position, and hold it there while the wire is being threaded through the eye and until the staple driver has come into position to drive the staple through the fabric. While the staple is thus being driven and clinched, the feed finger of the button-feeding mechanism is returned into position ready to repeat the operation. These operations are performed by means of an operating plunger, to which the power is applied by a foot, treadle or other suitable device.

Claim 4 relates solely to this button-feeding mechanism. It is desirable, if not necessary, that different sized buttons should be placed and held m position, and the feeding mechanism is provided with a compensating or lost motion feature, so that, after the button is fed into its position, the actuating mechanism may complete its normal operation of driving and clinching the staple. The controversy here turns on the special means of compensation employed in the plaintiff’s and defendant’s respective constructions. Plaintiff’s and defendant’s button-feeding mechanisms are best shown by the accompanying illustrations : i

[985]*985

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

Related

Ottinger v. Ferro Stamping & Mfg. Co.
39 F.2d 938 (E.D. Michigan, 1930)
N. O. Nelson Mfg. Co. v. F. E. Myers & Bro. Co.
25 F.2d 659 (Sixth Circuit, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
267 F. 983, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 2261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-mach-co-v-p-b-appeldoorns-sons-co-ca6-1920.