Robins Conveying Belt Co. v. Link Belt Co.

233 F. 1005, 148 C.C.A. 15, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2549
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedApril 11, 1916
DocketNo. 211
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 233 F. 1005 (Robins Conveying Belt Co. v. Link Belt Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Robins Conveying Belt Co. v. Link Belt Co., 233 F. 1005, 148 C.C.A. 15, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2549 (2d Cir. 1916).

Opinion

HOUGH, District Judge.

[1] As the defendant has not appealed, it is not deemed necessary to consider any matters, except those necessarily raised by plaintiffs’ assignments.

Both the patents in suit relate to certain details of belt conveyer devices. Apparatus of this kind transports upon an endless belt (sometimes of great length) material such as coal or ore that may be thrown upon it at any convenient point. Such belts may be flat or curved, according to (lie configuration of the carrying or idler pulleys upon which they run.

Claim 5 of 571,6041 shows a particular arrangement of the idlers so disposed in relation to each other as to enable certain oiling de[1006]*1006vices to be applied in the manner specifically shown by one of the patent drawings. As to this claim it is sufficient to say that it is by its terms confined to the especial apparatus displayed, and is not infringed by anything that defendant has made or used.

[2] No. 919,638 relates to an arrangement of old and well-known idler pulleys such as to raise the edges of the belt so as to produce a troughlike form of carrier. Conveyers of this form were by no means unknown in the prior art, and it is not contended that the patent is a pioneer.

Claims 3 and 4 of this patent2 cover a combination of which one essential element is means for safely adjusting each main bracket upon a common support for both brackets. The prior patent to Lynch, 625,342, shows a single solid bracket adjustable in exactly the same manner as is applied by Robins to his separate brackets.’ We agree with the court below in thinking that such application of means of adjustment to two brackets, when it was well known in respect of one, is “pushing mere novelty into the place of invention.” Both these claims were properly held void for lack of invention.

Claims 1, 2, and 5 3 describe a machine in which the auxiliary or side brackets are secured to and adjustable with one of the main brackets. The object of such adjustability is to make the auxiliary bracket an extension of the main one, to the end that when the main bracket is adjusted, or rectified, when necessary, the auxiliary or side bracket must go with it and be governed by the adjustment of its parent. An examination of the file wrapper shows that this characteristic of Robins’ invention was by the Patent Office considered essential to the grant prayed for. It is certain that the prior patents of Plummer, No. 728,005, Phillips, No. 706,848, and Blake, British (1904) 26,036, rendered this position on the part of the examiner correct. The defendant’s apparatus shows no auxiliary or side brackets in the sense that that phrase was used by Robins and allowed by the Patent Office. Therefore there is no infringement.

The decree below is affirmed, with costs.'

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

Related

In re Jobst
37 F.2d 751 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1930)
Harvey Hubbell, Inc. v. General Electric Co.
267 F. 564 (Second Circuit, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
233 F. 1005, 148 C.C.A. 15, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robins-conveying-belt-co-v-link-belt-co-ca2-1916.