Harnischfeger Corp. v. Miller Electric Manufacturing Co.

173 F. Supp. 45, 121 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 304, 1959 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3283
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DecidedMay 5, 1959
DocketCiv. A. No. 6353
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 173 F. Supp. 45 (Harnischfeger Corp. v. Miller Electric Manufacturing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harnischfeger Corp. v. Miller Electric Manufacturing Co., 173 F. Supp. 45, 121 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 304, 1959 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3283 (E.D. Wis. 1959).

Opinion

GRUBB, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Harnischfeger Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Harnischfeger”), and defendant, Miller Electric Manufacturing Company (hereinafter referred to as “Miller”), are both Wisconsin corporations having their principal places of business in Milwaukee and Appleton, Wisconsin, respectively. Both [47]*47parties are manufacturers of arc-welding equipment.

This action arises under the patent laws of the United States. The complaint charges defendant with infringement of United States Letters Patent No. 2,535,154, hereinafter called the Oestreicher patent, issued to plaintiff as assignee of Sol Oestreicher, on December 26, 1950. Plaintiff has been the owner of the Oestreicher patent at all times since that date.

The Oestreicher patent relates to alternating current arc welders of the type wherein a saturable reactor is employed as the means of regulating the amperage of the arc current. The four claims of the patent, infringement of all of which is alleged, are directed to a combination of elements including a transformer and a saturable reactor, the reactor being connected in the welding current circuit between the transformer secondary current and the welding arc.

The charge of infringement in this action relates to the manufacture and sale by defendant of two classes of arc welders, referred to in the record as the 250 series and the 300 series.

The defendant Miller interposed the defenses of invalidity and noninfringement.

Alternating Current Arc Welders— What They Are and How They Work

In electric arc welding, a gaseous electric arc is struck between a welding electrode and juxtaposed metal pieces to be joined together. Electric current passes through the arc, and the energy therein is transformed into intense heat which melts the work pieces. The welding electrode is moved along the seam whereon a weld is desired, and as the arc advances, the molten metal in its wake cools and solidifies into a single body.

The alternating current (hereinafter abbreviated “A.C.”) commercially supplied by power lines is at a voltage too high for arc welding, and transformei’s are, therefore, used in A.C. arc welding to step the line voltage down to a suitable value.

In A.C. arc welding the current periodically reverses direction, momentarily passing through zero during each reversal. Commercial alternating current has a frequency of sixty cycles per second which means that its direction of flow reverses 120 times each second, twice for each cycle of current. Each time the current passes through zero, the electric are is momentarily extinguished. The hot gases in the are zone retain their electrically conductive qualities for a brief period after extinction of the arc, however, and hence the arc is normally restruck when the voltage builds up in the other direction. Should the build-up of the current.in the opposite direction be unduly delayed, the hot gases may cool sufficiently to prevent the arc from re-striking. Slow current build-ups during reversals are referred to as “dwells,” and avoidance of excessive dwells is one of the requirements for a stable, smoothly-functioning welding are.

The amount of heat generated by the arc depends upon the amperage of the current flowing through it. A commercial arc welder must provide some means for regulating the amperage since different quantities of heat are required for different types of welding, depending upon the kind of metal being welded, its thickness, the depth of melting desired, and other factors.

In all the A.C. arc welders involved in this case, including those of the prior art, regulation or control of the arc current or amperage is accomplished by varying the amount of “reactance” in the arc circuit.

Reactance is an electrical property associated with coils linked by A.C. magnetic flux. Reactance in a circuit has the effect of limiting the A.C. current flow to a degree dependent upon the amount of reactance present. All coils possess at least some reactance.

The quantity of reactance associated with any given coil is determined by the number of turns in the coil, the magnetic conductivity of the frame serving as a guide path for flux linking the coil, its configuration, and other factors, such as [48]*48the current in other coils which link the same frame. Flux produced by one coil that does not link with another coil is called “leakage flux” and produces “leakage reactance” in the flux-producing coil.

Output amperage of an A.C. arc welder can be controlled:

1. By moving one of the transformer coils with respect to the other and thereby varying the leakage reactance in the transformer itself;

2. By providing in the transformer a special magnetic path or frame for leakage flux and controlling the amount of leakage flux (and hence leakage reactance) by changing the magnetic characteristics of the special path or frame; and

3. By placing in the arc circuit external to the transformer one or more separate iron-cored coils which function as “reactors” — i. e., coils whose sole function is to introduce reactance into the circuit.

It has been customary for many years to place air gaps in the magnetic frames of reactors used in arc welding. (Weed Patent No. 1,612,084; Frickey Patent No. 1,539,044; Steinert Patent No. 2,-175,927; and MacKenzie’s The Welding Encyclopedia, 11th Edition, 1943, page 548.)

Such gaps prevent excessive dwells in the welding current and thus contribute to arc stability.

In the third above-mentioned method of controlling amperage — i. e., by the use of one or more separate reactors, various techniques are known for changing the reactance of the reactor or reactors and, hence, changing the amperage of arc current. One of the simplest techniques is to change the number of turns in the reactor coil or coils. This is commonly done by tapping the coil or coils and providing a switch or plug-in arrangement so that the welding operator may select the number of turns desired.

Another method of varying the reactance of a reactor is to change the flux-carrying ability of its magnetic frame. This can be done by varying the size of the air gap, and it can also be achieved by passing direct current (hereinafter abbreviated “D.C.”) through coils wound on the reactor frame for that purpose, thereby partially “saturating” the frame with D.C. magnetic flux. To the extent that the flux-carrying ability of a reactor frame is thus pre-empted by D.C. flux, the frame becomes a less effective path for A.C. flux, and the reactance of the reactor is correspondingly reduced.

All the methods mentioned in the foregoing for varying the reactance of a reactor and thus controlling arc-current amperage were known and used twenty years or more before the Oestreicher patent. (Frickey Patent, page 1, line 101 et seq.; Weed Patent, page 1, lines 46-49.)

Under some conditions A.C. passing through a coil wound on a magnetic frame may induce in other .oils on the same frame alternating voltages (and currents if the circuit is closed) having frequencies which are a multiple of that of the original current. These multiple-frequency voltages and currents are called “harmonics.” In reactors of the type in which reactance is controlled by partially saturating the reactor frame with D.C. flux, produced by passing direct current through D.C. coils wound on the reactor frame, harmonic voltages are induced in the D.C. coils by the A.C.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
173 F. Supp. 45, 121 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 304, 1959 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harnischfeger-corp-v-miller-electric-manufacturing-co-wied-1959.