Home/Seventh Circuit/George M. Mooney v. Brunswick Corporation

George M. Mooney v. Brunswick Corporation

663 F.2d 724, 212 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 401, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 16564
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedOctober 27, 1981
Docket80-2410
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 663 F.2d 724 (George M. Mooney v. Brunswick Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
George M. Mooney v. Brunswick Corporation, 663 F.2d 724, 212 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 401, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 16564 (7th Cir. 1981).

Opinion

*726 CUDAHY, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant George M. Mooney, the inventor and owner of the two patents which formed the basis of this suit, seeks review of a district court order holding one patent invalid and the other not infringed. U.S. Patent No. 3,245,280 (the “gear structure patent”) involves a one piece ratchet clutch and bevel gear used primarily in outboard and stern drive motors. U.S. Patent No. 3,248,782 (the “method patent”) discloses a method of production of the one piece gear unit.

On July 31,1974, Mooney sued the Mercury Marine Division of Brunswick Corporation, a well-known manufacturer of outboard and stern drive motors, alleging infringement of Claim 4 of the structure patent and Claim 1 of the method patent. Brunswick answered and counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity and non-infringement. An eight-day bench trial was conducted in February 1979. On March 21, 1980, the district court issued its decision and order concluding that Claim 4 of the gear structure patent was invalid for obviousness in light of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and that Claim 1 of the method patent had not been infringed. Mooney filed a timely appeal. We affirm.

I.

This litigation focuses on the ratchet clutch and bevel gear units found in both outboard and stern drive boat motors. The engine in both the outboard and stern drive systems is located above water level. In the outboard system, to which for the sake of simplification we shall confine our comments, the engine is attached to a vertical drive shaft. With this system, power must be transmitted from the vertical drive shaft to the underwater horizontal propeller shaft (which drives the propeller) by means of a single bevel gear set. 1

A bevel gear set incorporates two parallel beveled gears which both mesh with a central pinion gear attached at the bottom of the vertical drive shaft. Each of these parallel beveled gears then turns in a direction opposite to the other (clockwise and counterclockwise) as they are driven by the pinion gear. One of these parallel gears (having a clockwise motion) serves as a “forward” gear to drive the propeller in a forward direction while the other parallel gear (having a counterclockwise motion) serves as a “reverse” gear to turn the propeller in the opposite direction.

In order to shift the power applied to the propeller from “forward” to “neutral” to “reverse,” a clutch must be used in connection with the beveled gears. A clutch member (between the two parallel beveled gears) is keyed to the propeller shaft; the clutch member can engage either the “forward” or the “reverse” beveled gear, or can be disengaged from both. To accomplish this engagement, each of the beveled gears has firmly attached to it, and recessed concentrically within it, a ratchet clutch which directly engages the clutch member. Thus, the clutch member moves between the beveled gears from engagement with the ratchet clutch attached to the “forward” gear, to disengagement (neutral), to engagement with the ratchet clutch attached to the “reverse” gear. As the shift lever moves the clutch member from “forward” to “neutral” to “reverse” positions, the movements of the propeller and the boat respond accordingly.

Figures 1-3 which are based on plaintiff’s exhibit 4 (with certain additional information which we have provided) illustrate a clutch and bevel gear unit and how it operates by movement of the clutch member from engagement with one ratchet clutch (Figure 1), to disengagement (Figure 2), to engagement with the other ratchet clutch (Figure 3).

*727 9NEw4I2

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

Related

Voice Capture, Inc. v. Intel Corp.
354 F. Supp. 2d 997 (S.D. Iowa, 2004)
Bradshaw v. Igloo Products Corp.
912 F. Supp. 1088 (N.D. Illinois, 1996)
Vardon Golf Co. v. BBMG Golf Ltd.
156 F.R.D. 641 (N.D. Illinois, 1994)
Halliburton Co. v. Schlumberger Technology Corp.
722 F. Supp. 324 (S.D. Texas, 1989)
Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co.
641 F. Supp. 828 (D. Massachusetts, 1986)
National Business Systems, Inc. v. Am International, Inc.
743 F.2d 1227 (Seventh Circuit, 1985)
Crucible, Inc. v. Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags AB
594 F. Supp. 1249 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1984)
Dickey-John Corporation, Cross-Appellant v. International Tapetronics Corporation and Field Electronics, Inc., Cross-Appellees
710 F.2d 329 (Seventh Circuit, 1983)
Union Carbide Corp. v. American Can Co.
558 F. Supp. 1154 (N.D. Illinois, 1983)
Cmi Corporation v. Barber-Greene Company
683 F.2d 1061 (Seventh Circuit, 1982)
Marcyan v. Nissen Corp.
578 F. Supp. 485 (N.D. Indiana, 1982)
Rockwell International Corp. v. Eltra Corp.
538 F. Supp. 700 (N.D. Illinois, 1982)
Schutt Manufacturing Co. v. Riddell, Inc.
673 F.2d 202 (Seventh Circuit, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
663 F.2d 724, 212 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 401, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 16564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-m-mooney-v-brunswick-corporation-ca7-1981.