Home/Sixth Circuit/Morgan Engineering Co. v. Alliance Mach. Co.

Morgan Engineering Co. v. Alliance Mach. Co.

176 F. 100, 100 C.C.A. 30, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4977
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedNovember 2, 1909
DocketNo. 1,917
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 176 F. 100 (Morgan Engineering Co. v. Alliance Mach. 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
Morgan Engineering Co. v. Alliance Mach. Co., 176 F. 100, 100 C.C.A. 30, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4977 (6th Cir. 1909).

Opinion

WARRINGTON, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). In the yiew we take of this case,, it is necessary first to consider whether the patent involves the quality of invention. It is claimed that Shem’s improvements over the prior art-consisted in the relocation-and rearrangement .of the' parts of' the well-known' double trolley traveling crane, without the result of any new function or mode of operation, and.that this does, not amount to patentable invention. The relevance and force of this contention may be tested by a comparison of the advantages'of a cra'ne made according to this invention, with the dis-advabiages of the type of. crane in use at the date of the patent. The comparison will be more accurate and helpful if it is applied, as pat--entee in his specifications applied! his invention, to ladle-cranes.

[103]*103The description given of the prior state, of the art in the specifications of the letters patent, as in substance pointed out in the. statement, seems to us to be borne out by the evidence. The same is true of the advantages attained by the invention, as there stated.

This is a combination patent. It has relation to hoisting and transporting mechanism as applied to ladle-cranes. As stated by learned counsel for appellant, this type of traveling crane “is most properly used for the handling of molten steel delivered from the furnaces of the steel plant into a ladle, and for carrying this ladle to a place where the contents of the ladle are discharged! into ingot molds.” Necessarily the inventor had to do with an old subject and an existing art. 'The movement and uses made of any substance as necessary and dangerous as is molten metal must always have engaged the faculties of men in contriving new and improved safety devices for its control.

An illustration of the old form of ladle-crane is, we think, faixdy represented by the following sketch:

big. 1 represents the bridge of the crane in side elevation, and Fig. 2 represents it in cross-section. A. A, are the main girders attached to the end carriages, B, B, having -wheeled trucks that run on trades, C, C. The main trolley, D, is carried, on tracks of the main girders, A, A, and is provided! with hoisting drums,,-K, it, from which the hoisting chains are suspended on the outside-of the main trolley, I), and outside of the main girders, A, A. Each hoisting-chain as shown on Fig. 2 is fastened on the lower end to a cross-bar, from the ends of which are suspended hooks for engaging the trunnions of the ladles. The auxiliary trolley, G, is operated over runways attached to the inside lower edges of the two main girders, A, A. The auxiliary trolley is equipped with one hoisting-chain carrying a hook on its end, used for operating the ladles. This is what is known as the overhanging ladle-crane.

The following are copies of the drawings of the patent in suit:

[104]*104

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

Related

Cold Metal Process Co. v. UNITED STATES ENG. & FOUNDRY CO.
3 F. Supp. 120 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1933)
Western Electric Co. v. Wallerstein
51 F.2d 529 (W.D. New York, 1931)
Ensten v. Simon, Ascher & Co.
282 U.S. 445 (Supreme Court, 1931)
Ensten v. Rich-Sampliner Co.
13 F.2d 132 (N.D. Ohio, 1926)
Line Material Co. v. Brady Electric & Mfg. Co.
299 F. 822 (D. Connecticut, 1924)
James L. Taylor Mfg. Co. v. Steuernagel
294 F. 362 (D. Connecticut, 1923)
Briggs v. Kaisling
288 F. 254 (D.C. Circuit, 1923)
Acme Motor Shield Corp. v. Roberts Mfg. Co.
288 F. 127 (D. Connecticut, 1923)
Concrete Appliances Co. v. Meinken
262 F. 958 (Sixth Circuit, 1920)
Ventilated Cushion & Spring Co. v. D'Arcy
232 F. 468 (Sixth Circuit, 1916)
Jackson Fence Co. v. Peerless Wire Fence Co.
228 F. 691 (Sixth Circuit, 1915)
Schiebel Toy & Novelty Co. v. Clark
217 F. 760 (Sixth Circuit, 1914)
Ohio Varnish Co. v. Glidden Varnish Co.
215 F. 902 (Sixth Circuit, 1914)
United Gas Improvement Co. v. Gas Mach. Co.
211 F. 672 (N.D. Ohio, 1913)
F. D. Cummer & Son Co. v. Atlas Dryer Co.
193 F. 993 (Sixth Circuit, 1912)
Herman v. Youngstown Car Mfg. Co.
191 F. 579 (Sixth Circuit, 1911)
Automatic Switch Co. v. J. L. Schureman Co.
183 F. 776 (U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois, 1910)
William B. Mershon & Co. v. Bay City Box & Lumber Co.
189 F. 741 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan, 1910)
Kellogg Switchboard & Supply Co. v. Dean Electric Co.
182 F. 991 (Sixth Circuit, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
176 F. 100, 100 C.C.A. 30, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-engineering-co-v-alliance-mach-co-ca6-1909.