McKay-Copeland Lasting Mach. Co. v. Copeland Rapid-Laster Manuf'g Co.

77 F. 306, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2959
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine
DecidedAugust 8, 1896
DocketNo. 426
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 77 F. 306 (McKay-Copeland Lasting Mach. Co. v. Copeland Rapid-Laster Manuf'g Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McKay-Copeland Lasting Mach. Co. v. Copeland Rapid-Laster Manuf'g Co., 77 F. 306, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2959 (circtdme 1896).

Opinion

PUTNAM, Circuit Judge.

The contest in this case is over the first and third claims of the patent in issue. The third claim differs from the first claim only in adding an element, which contributes no more to .the novelty of the combination than would the floor or block on which the machine covering the patent in controversy rests. The thM claim is, therefore, surplusage and void. :So. we confine oürselves'to the first. . ¡

In order that we may make clear the reasons for our disposition of .this cause; it is necessary to explain the patent in issue,- and [307]*307its history, somewhat at length. It was issued July 5, 1881. The' application describes the invention as “a new and useful improvement in machines for flanging the counters of boots arid shoes.” At no point does the patent use the word “last” as describing the substance over which the counter is turned or flanged. In place of the word “last” it uses the word “former.” This “former” is shown in the drawing to be a block of wood, in no way adapted as a last, and attached to the machine in such manner that it could not be used in lasting even the heel, unless first detached. The complainant calls attention to one of the drawings attached to the application, which shows the outlines of an entire shoe, with a “former” set into it; but it is still a “former,” and not a last. There is nothing in the patent which connects itself with these outlines of a shoe, and nothing which shows that it was practicable to fit a shoe, or even the heel of a shoe, into the machine, as shown in the patent. The suggestion arising from this pari of the drawing is worthless for any practical purpose in the case. It is entirely plain that the machine could not be used for lasting in any form of it indicated by the patent. Indeed, the entire scope of the invention is shown in the following extracts from the specification, and it is thereby limited to a mere matter of flanging counters, or heel portions of the uppers of boots and shoes, or counter stiilenings.

The specification reads as follows:

“Our invention relates to that class of machines in which the main part or body of the counter to be flanged is held by a suitable clamping apparatus firmly about a heel-sliaped former, while a projecting e.dge of the counter is turned over upon the sole or tread surface of such former, and forms .the flange of the counter. The object of our invention is to provide a simple and effectual means for clamping the counter about the former, and also, a flange-turning device, which shall not only turn down such flange, but subject it to a continued rubbing action, thereby causing it to retain its new form much better than when simply turned by a reciprocating slide, as is usually done, and also leaves it more free from wrinkles. While our invention is primarily designed for flanging the counters or heel portions of the uppers of boots and shoes, preparatory to lasting the same, it, may with equal facility be applied to counter stiffenings before they are attached to the uppers of the boots or shoes.. Our invention consists of the combination, with a heel-sliaped former, of a flexible strap or jointed mold, which, by the approach of such former, is caused to automatically grasp a.nd hold an interposed counter while its flange is being turned; and, further, of a peculiar flange-turning device consisting of a rapidly vibrating notched plate, which is adapted to turn down the flange, and at the same time repeatedly nib the same in the direction of Its length, as hereinafter set forth.”

The expression “preparatory to lasting tlie same,” found in this extract, means evidently preparatory to lasting in some other machine than the patented one. .In other words, it has relation entirely to two processes, one to be completed in the patented machine, and the other by some other independent mechanism.

The drawings attached to the application show a complete machine for flanging counters, in which machine is combined a plate, F, properly mounted and adjusted so that the counter or heel portion is turned down by it upon the surface of the “former,” and rubbed by it so as to obtain a smooth and permanent .flange or [308]*308heel seat. Although only the first and third claims are in litigation here, yet it is necessary to repeat all the claims in order to properly understand what combination is in issue. They are as follows:

“(1) The combination of the reciprocating former, D. with the dumping' strap, B, supported by the arms, g, g. and yoke, h, substantially as shown and described.
“(2) In a machine for flanging counters, the vibratory notched plate, B, as and for the purpose specified.
“(3) The combination of tbe reciprocating former, D, with the clamping strap, B, arms, g, g, yoke, h, and rod, i, substantially as shown.
“(4) In a maebine for flanging counters, the flanging plate, F, mounted on a vibratory shaft, m, in combination with a yielding plate, t, and set screw, v, substantially as specified.
“(5) The combination, with the former, or male die, D, with means for holding a counter firmly about it, of the vibratory notched plate, F, arranged and to operate substantially as described.
“(6) The combination of the former, D, clamping strap, B, plate, F, and gage, s, as herein set forth.”

We desire to note, at this point, that neither the first nor the third claim combines plate, F. and neither of them, in terms, combines a machine for flanging counters. The fact that some of the other claims do expressly combine such machines would, perhaps, leád to the result that, by implication, the first and third claims are so broad as to relate to other machines than those described in the patent, notwithstanding the entire application and specification are limited to machines of that character. We do not, however, find it necessary to determine whether or not claims 1 and 3 are so broad, but we do find it necessary to insist upon the fact that they are broad enough to be complete without combining plate, F. The substance of the first claim, and the principle of operation which it covers are shown by the following drawings:

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
77 F. 306, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckay-copeland-lasting-mach-co-v-copeland-rapid-laster-manufg-co-circtdme-1896.