Patent No. 950,402, granted to W. F. Phillips, for a gearing
device applied to a washing machine whereby the operation of
wringing, in either direction, may be conducted and controlled
simultaneously with the operation of washing, or separately, with
one motor, is void for want of invention.
A combination of old elements, evolving no new cooperative
function and producing no new result, other than convenience and
economy,
held not patentable.
231 F. 988 affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.
This suit was brought by the Grinnell Washing Machine Company
against the E. E. Johnson Company for infringement of letters
patent No. 950,402 granted to W. F. Phillips February 22, 1910. The
patentee states the object of the invention to be
"to provide a gearing
Page 247 U. S. 427
device of simple, durable, and inexpensive construction,
especially designed for use in operating washing machines and
wringers by means of power supplied by an electric motor or other
source of power."
The patent has been several times in litigation. In the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, it was
held valid and infringed. 209 F. 621. It was again sued upon in the
same district court, and, upon appeal to the Circuit Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, a decree holding the patent valid
and infringed was sustained. 222 F. 512. In the case at bar, the
patent was sustained in the District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois, where it was held valid and infringed, and a
decree entered accordingly. From
Page 247 U. S. 428
this decree, an appeal was taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit, and that court reversed the decree below
and held the patent invalid. 231 F. 988. A writ of certiorari
brings the last-named case here.
The gearing device, which is the subject matter of the Phillips
patent, will sufficiently appear, reference being had to the
annexed drawing and description.
image:a
While the invention is for a gearing device, the washing machine
to which it is said to be especially designed is what is known as
the "dolly type." As the drawing shows, in that type of machine,
there is a tub (10) on which is hinged a cover (11). Journaled in
the cover is a vertical shaft (45), known as the dolly shaft.
Mounted to slide up and down this shaft is the dolly, which
consists of a block of wood with pins projecting downward so that,
when the cover is down, the pins extend into the clothes in the
water in the tub. In operation, the dolly shaft, and with it the
dolly, is swung back and forth from 1/2 to 3/4 of a turn. A wringer
is mounted on the side of the tub, and this wringer consists of two
rolls which rotate towards each other and carry the clothes into
another tub which contains rinse water. The clothes may be carried
by the wringer rolls in either direction. The power commonly used
is a small electric motor. This motor (23) is fastened on the
bottom of the tub, and the armature shaft of the motor is secured
to a small pulley (22) connected by a belt (21) with a balance
wheel (20) journaled on a stub shaft supported from the bracket
(13). This large pulley wheel or belt wheel has secured on the hub
a small spur gear pinion (17) which meshes with a large spur gear
wheel (16) which is secured on the outer end of the horizontal
power shaft (15) which is journaled in two bearings (14) projecting
upward from the bracket or bearing. When the motor is running, the
train of gearing keeps the power shaft (15) running always in the
same
Page 247 U. S. 429
direction at an average slower rate of speed than the armature
shaft of the motor. The power shaft swings and rotates the vertical
dolly shaft back and forth. A spur gear pinion (40), secured on the
shaft (15), which meshes with the larger spur gear wheel (44)
secured on the shaft (43) journaled in bearings (42). The spur gear
wheel (44) carries an eccentric gear which is connected by a pitman
(48) with a pin on the horizontal reciprocating rack bar (47). This
rack bar is in mesh with a spur gear pinion (46) secured on the top
of the dolly shaft so that, the power shaft being continuously
rotated in one direction, the dolly shaft (45) is swung back and
forth in alternate directions.
From the power shaft (15), a train of gearing to the wringer
rolls has secured on it a small bevel gear (15a) which meshes with
two miter gears (26 and 27) mounted on a shaft (24) extending at
right angles to the power shaft. The shaft (24) has secured on it,
so that it can slide back and forth on the shaft, but must always
rotate with the shaft, a clutch sleeve (30) which has on its ends
clutch teeth shaped to be engaged with similar clutch teeth on the
inner ends of the hubs of the miter gears (26 and 27). The clutch
sleeve is engaged with only one miter gear at a time, and if it
engages with one miter gear, the wringer rolls are rotated in one
direction; if it engages with the other, the wringer rolls are
rotated in the opposite direction, so that the shifting of the
clutch sleeve reverses the direction of the rotation of the wringer
rolls. To do this shifting, there is an operating handle (34) which
extends beneath the wringer to a position where it can be readily
operated by the person doing the washing. The handle (34) is
secured on the end of a rock shaft (32) which has an upwardly
projecting arm (33) that fits into an annular groove (30), into the
clutch sleeve (39), so that as you swing the handle, the clutch
sleeve is moved from one position to another. The connection
between
Page 247 U. S. 430
shaft (24) and shaft (39) on which the wringer roll is secured
consists of a sprocket pinion (36) secured on the outer end of the
shaft (24) connected by a sprocket chain (37) with a large sprocket
wheel (38) secured on the outer end of the shaft (39).
The method of operation is to place a batch of clothing in soapy
water in the tub, and when the electric motor is started, the
driving shaft and the spur gear pinion, secured thereon, are put
into rotation; when the hinged cover of the machine is brought
down, it has the effect of causing the spur gear wheel to go into
mesh with the spur gear pinion, and to set the dolly shaft and its
head into reciprocating motion, thus scrubbing the clothes in the
tub. When the cover of the washer is swung up, the gear of the
dolly is automatically thrown out of gear with the pinion, the main
driving shaft still continuously rotating. The operating handle is
shifted so as to cause the clutch sleeve to engage with the hub of
the bevel pinion, thereby causing the bevel pinion secured to the
end of the main drive shaft to drive the shaft (24) and through the
latter the sprocket wheel (36) chain (37), the sprocket wheel (38)
and the shaft of the lower wringer roll, causing the wringer rolls
to rotate so that a garment placed between them will be carried
outwardly. When the first batch of clothes has been washed and
passed through the wringer, a second batch of clothes is inserted
in the soapy water in the washer, and the cover of the washer again
swung down, thereby, in the manner described, putting the dolly
into action again. While the second batch of clothes is being
washed, the operator shifts the handle which controls the wringing
mechanism so as to reverse the motion of the wringer rolls, so that
the garments in the rinse water tub may be passed back through the
rolls of the wringer and cast into a hamper. The second action of
the wringer rolls takes place simultaneously with the washing of
the second batch of clothes.
Page 247 U. S. 431
The net result, it is contended, of the Phillips patent is that
the washing and wringing are carried on simultaneously, and the
operations of the wringer rolls are controlled by the handle
described.
The claims alleged to be infringed are numbers 5 to 8 inclusive.
Number 6 was selected by the petitioner as typical in character,
and is as follows:
"6. A gearing device of the class described, comprising a
support, a power shaft mounted on the support, means for imparting
a continuous rotary motion to the power shaft, an upright shaft 45
mounted in the support, a driving device for the upright shaft
operatively connected with the power shaft and capable of imparting
an alternating rotary motion to the upright shaft, a horizontal
shaft 39, a driving mechanism for the said shaft 39 connected with
the power shaft and capable of imparting a rotary motion to the
shaft 39, and a controlling means applied to the driving device for
the shaft 39, for reversing the movement thereof and also for
operatively disconnecting the shaft 39 from the driving shaft."
Confessedly all the elements of the Phillips patent are old. The
merits of the combination, which it is contended involve invention
and validate the patent, are that this gearing device, applied and
operated as specified, enables the washing of a part of the clothes
to be performed at the same time that the wringing process is being
applied to other clothes, thus, it is said, saving time in doing
the washing, and furthermore, by the operation of the control
handle, the rolls may be reversed or instantly stopped as the
needs, convenience, and safety of the operator may require. These
things, the simultaneous washing and wringing with the operation of
the control handle for the purposes stated, embrace the advances
alleged to have been accomplished upon the prior art. In this view,
it is unnecessary to particularize the prior patents disclosed in
the art. The question is -- does this
Page 247 U. S. 432
bringing together of old elements accomplishing the purposes
stated amount to that combination which is invention within the
meaning of the patent law, or does the gearing device, thus applied
and used, show only an aggregation of old element's performing well
known functions, producing no novel and useful result entitling the
aggregation to the protection of a patent?
It is not always easy to decide this question, as the difference
of opinion in the circuit courts of appeals in this case
illustrates. Generally speaking, a combination of old elements, in
order to be patentable, must produce by their joint action a novel
and useful result, or an old result in a more advantageous way. To
arrive at the distinctions between combinations and aggregations,
definite reference must be had to the decisions of this Court. The
subject was fully discussed in
Palmer v. Corning,
156 U. S. 342,
wherein the previous decisions were reviewed. The rule stated in
Hailes v. Van
Wormer, 20 Wall. 353,
87 U. S. 368,
was quoted with approval, wherein the Court said:
"It must be conceded that a new combination, if it produces new
and useful results, is patentable though all the constituents of
the combination were well known and in common use before the
combination was made. But the results must be a product of the
combination, and not a mere aggregate of several results, each the
complete product of one of the combined elements. Combined results
are not necessarily a novel result, nor are they an old result
obtained in a new and improved manner. Merely bringing old devices
into juxtaposition, and there allowing each to work out its own
effect without the production of something novel, is not invention.
No one, by bringing together several old devices without producing
a new and useful result, the joint product of the elements of the
combination and something more than an aggregate of old results,
can acquire a right to prevent others from
Page 247 U. S. 433
using the same devices, either singly or in other combinations,
or, even if a new and useful result is obtained, can prevent others
from using some of the devices, omitting others, in
combination."
Hailes v. Van
Wormer, 20 Wall. 353,
87 U. S.
368.
In
Richards v. Chase Elevator Co., 158 U.
S. 299,
158 U. S. 302,
the rule was stated as follows:
"Unless the combination accomplishes some new result, the mere
multiplicity of elements does not make it patentable. So long as
each element performs some old and well known function, the result
is not a patentable combination, but an aggregation of
elements."
In
Specialty Manufacturing Co. v. Fenton Metallic
Manufacturing Co., 174 U. S. 492,
174 U. S. 498,
the rule was again tersely stated:
"Where a combination of old devices produces a new result, such
combination is doubtless patentable, but where the combination is
not only of old elements, but of old results, and no new function
is evolved from such combination, it falls within the ruling of
this Court in
Hailes v. Van Wormer, 20
Wall. 353,
87 U. S. 368;
Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U. S. 347,
92 U. S.
356;
Phillips v. Detroit, 111 U. S.
604;
Brinkerhoff v. Aloe, 146 U. S.
515,
146 U. S. 517;
Palmer v.
Corning, 156 U. S. 342,
156 U. S.
345;
Richards v. Chase Elevator Co.,
158 U. S.
299."
Applying the rule thus authoritatively settled by this Court, we
think no invention is shown in assembling these old elements for
the purposes declared. No new function is "evolved from this
combination;" the new result, so far as one is achieved, is only
that which arises from the well known operation of each one of the
elements.
In the gearing specified, every element is old. The operations
of the wringer and the washing machine, although simultaneous, are
independent one of the other. The control of the operation of the
wringer is by an old and well known method. From the cooperation of
the elements
Page 247 U. S. 434
here brought together, no new result involving the exercise of
the creative faculty which is invention is achieved. Phillips may
have produced a more convenient and economical mechanism than
others who preceded him, but superiority does not make an
aggregation patentable.
Specialty Manufacturing Co. v. Fenton
Metallic Manufacturing Co., supra. The assemblage of the old
elements and their operation in the manner indicated may save time,
and the mechanism may meet with a readier sale than other similar
devices, but these things may result from mechanical skill and
commercial enterprise, and do not necessarily involve
invention.
To borrow an illustration made at the argument, we think the
Phillips aggregation of elements may be likened to the operation of
a number of different machines in a factory by power applied from
the same line shaft, each operation contributing its separate part
to the production of a given result. So, in this instance, we think
the combination accomplished by Phillips fails to show that
exercise of invention, producing a novel and useful result from the
cooperating action of the elements, which is essential to
distinguish patentable combination from an aggregation of old
elements so placed by mechanical skill as to do work more rapidly
and economically.
We agree with the conclusion reached by the court below.
Affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE McKENNA dissents.