Claim 1 of letters patent No. 228,525, granted June 8, 1880, to
William D. Gray for an improvement in roller grinding mills,
namely,
"1. In a roller grinding mill, the combination of the
countershaft provided with pulleys at both ends and having said
ends mounted in vertically and independently adjustable bearings,
the rolls C E having pulleys connected by belts with one end of the
countershaft, and the rolls P F independently connected by belts
with the other end of the countershaft, as shown,"
is invalid because, in view of the state of the art, it does not
embody a patentable invention.
Page 138 U. S. 125
The combination set forth in that claim evinces only the
exercise of ordinary mechanical or engineering skill.
That claim is not infringed by the use of a roller mill made in
accordance with letters patent No. 334,460, granted January 19,
1886, to John T. Obenchain.
In Equity. Decree dismissing the bill. Plaintiff appealed. The
case is stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit in equity, brought in the Circuit Court of the
United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania by the
Consolidated Roller Mill Company against R. Co. Walker, for the
infringement of claim 1 of letters patent No. 228,525, granted June
8, 1880, on an application filed May 2, 1879, to William D. Gray
for an improvement in roller grinding mills. The circuit court,
held by Judges McKennan and Acheson, entered a decree dismissing
the bill, with costs. The case was heard on pleadings and proofs.
The answer denied the validity of the patent, charged want of
novelty and of patentability, and denied infringement. The opinion
of the court (43 F. 575) was written by Judge Acheson.
The specification and claims of the patent are as follows:
"My invention relates to that class of mills in which horizontal
grinding rolls arranged in pairs are employed, and the invention
consists in the improved arrangement of belts and pulleys for
communicating motion to the rolls, and in other minor details
hereinafter described in detail. In the accompanying drawings,
Figure 1 represents a side elevation of the same; Fig. 2, a top
plan view of the rolls and their operating belts, and Fig. 3, an
end elevation of the same, partly in section. It has been found by
experience that when the rolls are driven by gearing, a great deal
of noise and a jarring of the parts of the apparatus and trembling
of the mill-floor result, and this
Page 138 U. S. 126
jarring and trembling in turn cause an unevenness of operation
or grinding, and a rapid and uneven wear of the rolls. To obviate
these difficulties and produce an even steady motion, I discard the
gearing hitherto employed and substitute therefor a system of
belting, arranged in a peculiar manner, to give the proper
direction and speed to the rolls. In the drawings, A represents the
frame or body of the machine, in the upper part of which are
mounted, in pairs, a series of grinding or crushing rolls, C, D, E,
F. Above the grinding rolls is arranged a hopper provided with
feeding rolls G, H, arranged to deliver the grain to each pair of
rolls. B represents a countershaft, which is represented in the
drawings as extending transversely through the base of the frame or
body A, parallel with the grinding rolls, but which may, if
desired, be located entirely without the machine. As represented in
Figs. 1 and 2, the grinding rolls are furnished alternately at
opposite ends each with a belt wheel or pulley, while the
countershaft B is furnished at one end with one wheel or pulley and
at its opposite end with two. N represents the main driving belt,
which passes to and around the pulley
c of the roll C,
thence downward and around pulley
b of the countershaft,
B; thence upward and around pulley
e of the roll E, and
back to the source of power, imparting to the rolls C and E a
motion in one direction, and to the countershaft a motion in the
reverse direction. From the pulleys
b' b'' on the rear end
of the countershaft, B, belts P and R pass upward and around
pulleys
d and
f, of the rolls D, F, as shown in
Fig. 2, imparting to said rolls a motion the reverse of that of the
rolls C, E. In this way, the two rolls of each set are caused to
revolve toward each other while being all driven from a common
source primarily."
"The use of belting obviates all the noise incident to gearing,
and produces a much more even and steady motion, each roller being
driven from the countershaft, instead of one from another, as
heretofore. Another advantage incident to the arrangement of
belting above described is that by simply removing the pulley of
any shaft and replacing it with another of proper size, any desired
difference in the speed of the rolls
Page 138 U. S. 127
may be obtained, whereas in the case of gearing, this cannot be
accomplished except through the use of a very complicated
arrangement of intermediate wheels. In order to adapt the
countershaft B to perform the double purpose of reversing the
motion of certain of the rolls, and of acting as a belt tightener,
it is mounted at opposite sides of the frame or body A, in boxes
swiveled or hung in yokes L, sliding vertically in guides or boxes
K, and adjusted up and down therein by screw rods or stems S, the
swivel boxes permitting a slightly greater movement of the shaft B
at the one end than at the other, without interfering with its free
rotation, and thereby permitting the tightening of the belt or
belts at one side of the machine without disturbing those at the
other. In order to adjust and maintain the rolls C, D, and E, F, in
proper relation to each other, the two outer rolls, C and F, are
carried in sliding boxes, which are formed each with a T rib or
standard,
m, moving in a groove or way of corresponding
shape, the rolls being held up to their operative position by
springs U, which, in turn, are regulated in pressure by screws T.
Clamping screws may be arranged to secure the sliding boxes Q in
any desired position. By the above arrangement of the sliding
boxes, they are prevented from being advanced or retracted
unequally, and thereby giving the rolls a 'winding' position. It is
desirable that, when the rolls are not employed in grinding, they
should be held apart, as otherwise they would be liable to injury
by direct contact, and also subjected to unnecessary wear. To
accomplish their ready separation, I place just in front of each
sliding box, Q, a rotating cam or eccentric, Y, which, when turned
in one direction, permits the box to be advanced, but, when given a
partial revolution about its axis, forces and holds back the
same."
"The meal, after being crushed by the rollers, sometimes packs
or cakes together, and for the purpose of regranulating the same,
it is passed through a disintegrator. The disintegrator cylinder
may be mounted on and driven by the countershaft, B, as shown in
Fig. 3, in which case the usual surrounding shell or casing [shown
in the drawings] will need to be adjustable vertically. "
Page 138 U. S. 128
"The peculiar manner of or means for adjusting the shell forms
no part of the present invention, and need not therefor be
described in detail herein. Many arrangements, such as the use of
bolts and slots, or adjusting screws, for example, will suggest
themselves to the skilled mechanic."
"Machines of this class are found to be impaired in their
operation through the heating of the roller journals. To overcome
this defect, I form on the shafts of the rollers, and also on the
countershaft, near each end, a collar,
x, which serves
both to prevent end play of the shaft and to carry upward
continually a supply of oil from the chamber or supply,
z,
to the upper side of the shaft and box, whence it spreads out over
the entire surface of the bearing and journal. The boxes are each
formed with an annular oil chamber,
v, at each end,
communicating by inclined passages,
w, with the supply
chamber or sink,
z. In this way, a perfect lubrication of
the bearings is constantly maintained, and heating is obviated. The
feed rolls, G, H, are furnished at their ends with pulleys,
g,
h, which are driven by belts from the grinding rolls, D, E,
which, being stationary, cannot interfere with the tension of the
belts, as would the adjustable rolls, C, F."
"I am aware that various devices have hitherto been employed to
regulate the distance between the rolls in order to govern the
fineness of the material delivered from them, and I am also aware
that shafts have been made movable in such manner as to tighten
belts passing over pulleys on other shafts, and I lay no claim
thereto; but I believe myself the first to construct and organize a
grinding mill in the peculiar manner herein shown and described,
whereby the single belt is caused to operate the various parts in
the required directions, and the disintegrating cylinder caused to
keep the belt tight."
"Having thus described my invention, what I claim is:"
"1. In a roller grinding mill, the combination of the
countershaft provided with pulleys at both ends and having said
ends mounted in vertically and independently adjustable bearings,
the rolls C, E, having pulleys connected by belts with one end of
the countershaft, and the rolls D, F, independently connected by
belts with the other end of the countershaft, as shown. "
Page 138 U. S. 129
"2. In a roller grinding mill, a disintegrating cylinder
connected at its two ends by belts with the rolls, in combination
with independently and vertically adjustable supports connected by
transverse pivots with the boxes sustaining the ends of the
cylinder, in the manner described and shown."
"3. In a roller mill, the combination of the frame, the
cylinder, the pivoted bearings, K, the forked arms, L, having the
bearings therein, and the screw, S, as shown."
The opinion of the circuit court, after quoting from the
specification, says:
"Gray's specification, as our quotations therefrom indicate,
suggests the idea that he was the first to apply belt drives to
roller grinding mills. But the fact is otherwise, as the proofs
abundantly show. Nor was he the first to discard from such mills
cog gearing and friction gears altogether, and substitute therefor
belt driving."
The opinion then refers to Mechwart's Austrian patent, granted
August 3, 1875, extracts from which, as found in the record, are as
follows:
"The arrangement invented by me has for its object an advance in
the former method of driving the cooperating rollers of any
particular roller-mill. This end has heretofore been obtained
exclusively either by the intermeshing of both rollers through the
means of spur gear or else through the naked driving of the one
roller from the driven roller by means of friction produced through
any pressure whatever between the rollers. . . . The substance of
the invention, which I consider new and desirable for patent,
consists in the use of belts for the driving of each single roller
of a pair in roller mills for the begetting of mill products in any
desired relation of the two cooperating rolls to each other.
Heretofore, in roller mills, one roll of a pair has been driven
from the other by means of spur gearing, or by means of friction
caused by the pressure between the rollers. The transmission of
movement through spur gearing has, however, the disadvantage that,
through the unavoidable inequality of the intermeshing, an unequal
movement of the rollers ensues, which results, according to
experience, in the rapid loss of 'true,' and in unequal wearing
away of the rollers. Besides this, the disagreeable rattling of
spur gearing, and the rapid
Page 138 U. S. 130
wearing away of the gears themselves, is a disadvantage. The
driving of the second roller by means of friction of the two
rollers pressed together is only practical when the chop passes the
rollers in very thin strata, and not in coarse particles. In case
of the latter, the friction will be relieved, and the driven roller
be stopped. Besides this, only an equal peripheral speed of the
rollers is permitted by this construction, and therefore it is not
applicable when an unequal speed is desired, as, for example, in
the grinding of the middlings into flour. These disadvantages the
inventor has removed by his application of belt drive to every
single roller of a roller pair of a roller mill, which, according
to his best knowledge and conscience, has never been employed in
similar machines, and is entirely new, so that, by means of such
transmission of movement, an equal revolution is obtained, which is
impossible with spur gearing. In the accompanying three drawings
are six different arrangements, shown for different groupings of
the rollers, although I do not thereby intend to exclude every
other possible arrangement."
The opinion then proceeds:
"We find therein distinctly set forth the disadvantages
resulting from the use of spur gearing in roller grinding mills,
viz., the disagreeable rattling, the rapid wearing away of
the gears, and the unequal movement and unequal wearing away of the
rollers, and also the inefficiency of driving by means of
frictional contact between the rolls, which latter, it is set
forth, is only practical when the chop passes the rollers in very
thin layers, and not in coarse particles, and is not applicable
when an unequal peripheral speed of the rolls is required. All
these disadvantages, it is declared, are avoided by Mechwart's
invention, which consists in driving both cooperating rolls by
means of belts, whereby, also, can be obtained an equal and also an
unequal peripheral speed, while the diameter of the rolls, as well
as the diameter of the belt pulleys, can be varied relatively to
each other for different objects. Mechwart's drawings show, as
examples, six different arrangements of belting, which, he states,
are intended to illustrate 'only some of the different arrangements
of the belt drive for roller mills, without exhausting the possible
variations
Page 138 U. S. 131
in its application.' Figure 3, sheet A, shows a machine having
two pairs of grinding rolls, the pairs being vertical, and arranged
side by side. A shaft, mounted in the machine frame in fixed
bearings, carries two pulleys, one at each side of the machine. A
belt from one of these pulleys passes around a tightening pulley at
the upper right-hand corner of the machine, thence around a pulley
on the upper left-hand roll shaft, thence around a pulley on the
lower right-hand roll shaft, and thence back to the driving pulley,
and by this belt one roll of each pair is driven. From the other
pulley, on the other side of the machine, a belt is arranged in a
similar manner, so as to drive the other two rolls of the pair.
Without further description of the Mechwart system, it is enough to
say that his patent disclosed roller grinding mills, single and
double, with both vertical and horizontal pairs of rolls arranged
side by side, driven by means of belts exclusively, his machine
being equipped with adjusting or tightening pulleys, and having a
shaft journaled directly into the machine frame and receiving its
motion from the prime mover of the mill, either directly or by
belt."
It then says:
"But turning now to machinery employed in the arts generally, it
is certain that the use of belt gearing interchangeably with or as
a substitute for cog gearing was very old, an common before Gray's
alleged invention. It was, too, an old and familiar expedient to
keep the belt adjusted to a proper degree of tightness by means of
tightening pulleys, the shafts of which, in revolving, sometimes
did other work about the machine, and shafts had been made movable
in such manner as to tighten belts passing over pulleys on other
shafts. It was also old, and very common in machine shops and
factories of various kinds, to provide an individual machine with a
countershaft mounted directly in the machine frame, the
countershaft being driven by a belt from the line shaft, and the
machine by a belt from the countershaft. Furthermore, it was no new
thing to provide the journal boxes or hangers in which
countershafts are mounted with means for independently adjusting
the ends of the shaft."
It then adds that in view of the things referred to, the court
is unable to
Page 138 U. S. 132
discover any patentable subject matter in claim 1 of Gray's
patent, and that it falls directly within the established principle
that the application of an old process, machine, or device to a
like or analogous purpose, with no change in the mode of
application and no result substantially different in its nature,
will not sustain a patent even if the new form of result has not
before been contemplated, citing
Pennsylvania Railroad v.
Locomotive Truck Co., 110 U. S. 490, and
Blake v. San Francisco, 113 U. S. 679.
It then says that it is quite clear, moreover, that the
application of belting to drive roller grinding mills to obviate
the difficulties incident to the use of cog gearing and to secure
the advantages set forth in Gray's specification did not originate
with him, and that therefore even were it conceded that his
peculiar arrangement is attended with better results than had been
attained previously, still this would not sustain the patent, for
the mere carrying forward of an original conception, resulting in
an improvement in degree simply, is not invention, citing
Burt
v. Evory, 133 U. S. 349, and
that the conclusion is unavoidable that the combination set forth
in Gray's first claim evinces only the exercise of ordinary
mechanical or engineering skill, citing
Hollister v. Benedict
Mfg. Co., 113 U. S. 59;
Thompson v. Boisselier, 114 U. S. 1;
Aron v. Manhattan Railway Co., 132 U. S.
84;
Hill v. Wooster, 132 U.
S. 693,
132 U. S. 701,
and
Howe Machine Co. v. National Needle Co., 134 U.
S. 388. We fully concur in these views and conclusions,
and regard them as entirely sufficient to justify the decree.
The circuit court further says:
"It seems to be proper for us to add that our judgment is with
the defendant upon the defense of noninfringement also. To
understand the nature of the invention intended to be covered by
the first claim, resort must be had to the specification, and we
there find that the 'swivel boxes' are essential to the
contemplated greater movement at one end of the shaft than at the
other, whereby is effected 'the tightening of the belt or belts at
one side of the machine, without disturbing those at the other.'
This is apparent on the face of the paragraph hereinbefore quoted
at
Page 138 U. S. 133
length, and the expert testimony is direct and convincing that
to the practical working of the described device as a belt
tightener this swiveling feature is indispensable. Without the
swiveled boxes, Gray would not have 'independently adjustable
bearings.' True, those boxes are not expressly mentioned in the
claim, but we think they are to be regarded as entering therein by
necessary implication, for the reason just stated, as well as by
force of the words 'as shown.' Moreover, the prior state of the art
would limit the claim to the specific organization shown and
described.
Phoenix Caster Co. v. Spiegel, 133 U. S.
360,
133 U. S. 369. But that
organization the defendant does not use. His alleged infringement
consists in the use of a roller mill manufactured under and in
accordance with letters patent No. 334,460, granted on January 19,
1886, to John T. Obenchain. In the defendant's machine, the journal
boxes are rigidly supported so as to be always horizontal, and
incapable of any tilting or swiveling motion, and this is essential
to the working of the apparatus. A continuous countershaft is not
employed, but three coupled base shafts, the outer shafts or
sections being each journaled at the outer end in a vertically
adjustable nonswiveling box, and the inner end of each being forked
and carrying a loosely pivoted ring. These two rings are connected
by a tumbling rod forked at each end and pivoted to the rings, thus
forming a universal coupling, and thereby, through the central
shaft or tumbling rod, rotary motion is transmitted from one of the
end shafts or sections to the other, no matter how much they may
differ in vertical position. Now for the reasons already given, we
are of opinion that such a construction of Gray's first claim as
would embrace the Obenchain device is inadmissible."
We see no reason to doubt the correctness of these views.
Decree affirmed.