Huntington v. Hartford Heel-Plate Co.

33 F. 281, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2933
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut
DecidedNovember 25, 1887
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 33 F. 281 (Huntington v. Hartford Heel-Plate Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Huntington v. Hartford Heel-Plate Co., 33 F. 281, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2933 (circtdct 1887).

Opinion

Shipman, J.

This is a motion for a preliminary injnnclion against the alleged infringement of two letters patent, No. 296,623 for a die for securing heel-plates to rubber shoes, and No. 296,624 for a machine for securing such plates to such shoes, each granted to Frederick Richardson, April 8, 1884. The patentee described the object and general character of the invention claimed in No. 296,623 as follows:

“This invention has reference to an improvement in the dies which are placed into rubber shoes for the purpose of bending and clinching the nails or pins by which metallic wearing-pieces are secured to the rubber shoes; and it consists in the peculiar and novel construction of the die for bending the nails or pins, and also the die for clinching the same, as will be more fully set forth hereinafter. In rubber shoes, and particularly in rubber overshoes, the rear portion of the heel is subjected to more wear than any other portion of the shoe, and when worn admits water to the interior of the shoe. This portion is therefore usually protected by some metallic plate or wearing surface, which requires to be firmly secured by clinching the nails or pins; and to do tills more effectually, so as to prevent the tearing of the rubber and also prevent leakage, is the object of this invention. When nails or pins are driven through the heel of a rubber shoe against the ordinary iron last, the nails are liable to bond near the heel-plate and tear the material, thus making a rent through which water may enter the shoo, and this makes the overshoe practically useless. I form the die so that the first operation will bo to curve the ends of the pins or nails without bending the portion in the material of the heel, and the continuation of the pressure exerted on the heel-plate will clinch the pins or nails, and so compress tho material around the shanks of the pins or nails that no water can enter the shoe.”

[282]*282Pins, flattened at the ends which penetrate the rubber, are formed in one piece with the heel-plate. To insure the bending of the lower part of the pins only, and also the close fitting of the pins in the rubber, the die is provided, near the edge of the semi-circular heel-plate, with “radially-placed inclined planes, the incline of which is placed in opposite directions,” so as to bend the ends of the pins in opposite directions, when pressure is applied to the heel-plate and to curve the ends. The planes may also be placed so that each pair of pins is turned and bent towards each other. These planes are uniform and regular depressions in the surface of the die; the highest elevations of all the planes are on lines radiating from a common center.

The claims of the patent are as follows:

“(1) A heel-die provided with the radially-placed inclined clinching surfaces,' d, d, constructed to bend and clinch the nails or pins of a heel-plate, and secure the plate to the heel of a rubber shoe, as described.
“ (2) A heel-die provided with the hole, c, by which it can be secured to a post, and radially-inclined planes, constructed to bend the lower portion of the nails or pins, so as to enter the material in clinching and secure the heel-plate, as described.”

The operative part of the defendant’s die consists of projections above its surface, whereby the prongs are set in the rubber by one stroke of the plunger. One side, which is the working face of each projection, is concave. The die of ordinary size has five projections, three of which are not radially placed. The highest elevations of the two end projections are on radial lines centering at the same point. The first operation of the defendant’s die is to curve the ends of the prong.

Lasts or anvils which enable pronged heel-plates to be secured upon rubber shoes are old, and a last having depressions or recesses upon its surfaces, which operate to turn and clinch rivets or prongs in the sole of' a shoe is old. From the nature of the subject the patent must be a narrow one, and the patentee has limited it to radially-placed inclined planes, which serve to curve and clinch the ends of the prongs. These planes are not simply planes circumferentially arranged around the edge of the die. Such a construction would contain no patentable peculiarity. They are inclined planes, the elevations of which are in lines which radiate from a common center. This uniform method of construction is well-adapted to the peculiar prongs of the Richardson heel-plate, viz., studs, which have enlarged bases serving as plugs, and flattened clinching ends. The ends, which are the only bent portion, must be carefully bent, to enable the plug to follow the pointed end and fill the hole. The prongs of the Richards heel-plate are slender throughout their length, and apparently there is not so much need of the uniformity in the inclines of his projections as in the Richardson die. But the two extreme elevations are in lines radiating from a common center, the two corresponding prongs are curved by means of these inclines in the same direction in which the Richardson end prongs are curved, and the ends of the prongs are first curved. I am satisfied that, so far as the defendant uses radially-inclined planes, the plaintiff’s patent is infringed.

[283]*283"No. 296,624 is for a machine for fastening or securing metallic heel-plates to a rubber shoe, and consists, the patentee says in his specifications, “in the peculiar and novel construction of the machine by which the rubber overshoe and the heel-plate are held and guided so as to be always in their proper relative positions, and the heel-plate is forced upon and secured to the heel of the shoe.” The first, third, and fifth claims which are said to be infringed are as follows:

“(1) In a machine for securing heel-plates to rubber overshoes, the combination with a support for the shoe, of a guide and holder, substantially as described, by which the heel-plate is held in the proper position on the shoe, and means, substantially as described, by which the heel-plate is forced onto the shoe, and the nails or pins through the same and secured by clinching, as described.”
“(3) The combination, with the pivoted swinging-post, or horn, II, constructed to support the shoe, of the guide, I’, constructed to support and guide tlie heel-plate, and the plunger, g, arranged to force the heel-plate onto the slice, and secure the same, substantially as described.”
“(5) A machine for applying heel-plates to rubber overshoes, consisting of devices for attaching the same, provided with the holder, T, and means, substantially as described, for bringing the same in contact with the rear portion of the shoe, as described.”

It is difficult to describe intelligibly, without the aid of a picture or model, the machine of the plaintiff. It consists, in general, of a swinging-post upon which the die and the shoo aro placed, the shoe being also supported upon a slender frame work. A plunger is forced by means of a cam against the heel-plate which is placed upon the “holder guide,” and the pins on the heel-plate are forced through the rubber. The holder or guide, and the mechanism connected therewith, are the peculiar parts of the machine. It has a segmental end on which the heel-plate rests, being secured in a central position by a double spring upon the segmental end.

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

Related

Northwestern Fuel Co. v. Dunkley-Williams Co.
174 F. 121 (Seventh Circuit, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 F. 281, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2933, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huntington-v-hartford-heel-plate-co-circtdct-1887.