Home/Second Circuit/Schenck v. Singer Manuf'g Co.

Schenck v. Singer Manuf'g Co.

77 F. 841, 23 C.C.A. 494, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 1646
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedJanuary 7, 1897
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 77 F. 841 (Schenck v. Singer Manuf'g 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
Schenck v. Singer Manuf'g Co., 77 F. 841, 23 C.C.A. 494, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 1646 (2d Cir. 1897).

Opinion

WALLACE, Circuit Judge.

The decree sought to be reviewed by Ibis appeal adjudged the validity of the first and second claims of letters patent of the United States to Miller & Diehl, No. 224,710, granted February 17, 1880, and the infringement of these claims by the defendant. At the close of the argument we reserved for further consideration the single question whether, in view of the prior state of the art, the court below should have adjudged these claims void for want of patentable novelty. If the first claim is valid, the second certainly is, because it is for the same combination, with limitations which include some additional minor improvements. The consideration of the case will therefore be simplified by con fining our attention to the alleged invention of the first claim. That: claim covers an improvement: in band-wheel bearings for sewing machine’s, which consists, essentially, in introducing a brace into the frame of the table supporting the sewing mechanism, which is [842]*842independent' of the table top, and a short shaft or crank for- carrying the pedal mechanism, mounted one end upon the brace, and the other upon the leg of the table. By this change of organization, the patentee simplified and condensed the parts of pre-existing bearings', and lessened the cost of construction, besides making a. more efficient bearing. The pre-existing bearings were of three types. One is represented in the patent of 1864 to Stoop, where the shaft was mounted one end on each of the two table legs, and was consequently nearly as long as the table, had to be made heavy to prevent sagging, and vibrated with the vibrations of the table top. Another is represented in the patent of 1871 to McCann, where a short shaft was mounted on one of the legs of the table. This type is known as the “overhung stud” bearing. The pitman is applied outside the bearing, and in such a construction there is a tendency to 'sa'g and jam the shaft, thus producing wear and friction. Another is represented in the patent of 1872 to Brill, where a hanger was bolted to the table top, and the short shaft was mounted one end in this hanger, and the other in one of the legs of the table. By this arrangement the -v ibrations of the table top are communicated to the shaft. During the period of nearly 20 years intervening between the patent to Stoop and the patent in suit, there were many attempts to obviate the disadvantages which existed in these different types of bearings. The long shaft was discarded altogether. The Brill construction, if it ever went into use, disappeared. The overhung stud bearing became the generally accepted type, and inventors busied themselves with attempts to improve it. Its defects were obvious. One of these attempts appears- in the patent of 1871 to Wild, where the patent points out how much accuracy of construction these bearings require, and how quickly they “wobble, jar, and rotate irregularly,” and hew they “involve frequent and expensive repairs.” In spite of the efforts made; the defects were not satisfactorily obviated. They are rehearsed again in the patent to Donovan, of a few months later date than the patent in suit, but which was applied for while the application for the patent in suit was pending. After referring to the overhung stud as the construction almost invariably used, Donovan states:

' “This method has been open to serious objections, among which are the great accuracy required in the fitting of the wheel upon its bearings, in order to prevent lateral irregularity in the movement of its rim; the unequal wear upon the stud and upon the axial opening in said wheel, in consequence of the thrust of the pitman; and the large size of said bearing stud required to enable it to withstand in any degree such unequal' side pressure, resulting in the creation of a large amount of friction surface, which materially increased the labor of running the machine.”

By .the improvement covered by the first claim of the patent in suit, the disadvantages thus referred to have been obviated, and, as has been said, the parts are simplified, and the cost of construction lessened. The patentees inserted a brace of sawbuck form betweeh 'the; legs of the table, bolted it to the legs, and located the

[843]

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

Related

Jensen-Salsbery Laboratories, Inc. v. Salt Lake Stamp Co.
28 F.2d 99 (Eighth Circuit, 1928)
Worthington Pump & Machinery Corp. v. Clark Bros. Co.
17 F.2d 189 (W.D. New York, 1927)
Eddy v. Kramer
247 F. 962 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1918)
Miehle Printing Press & Mfg. Co. v. Whitlock Printing Press & Mfg. Co.
223 F. 647 (Second Circuit, 1915)
American Graphophone Co. v. Universal Talking Mach. Mfg. Co.
151 F. 595 (Second Circuit, 1907)
Comptograph Co. v. Mechanical Accountant Co.
145 F. 331 (First Circuit, 1906)
Doig v. Morgan Mach. Co.
122 F. 460 (Second Circuit, 1903)
Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. v. Thum
111 F. 904 (Second Circuit, 1901)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
77 F. 841, 23 C.C.A. 494, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 1646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schenck-v-singer-manufg-co-ca2-1897.