Amicus Curiae Brief — John E. Thropp's Sons Co. v. Seiberling

Supreme Court brief1924

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

. f « a

‘THE JOHN E. THROPP'S SONS’ COMPANY

No. Beh iss.

in the Supreme Court of the United States

Octosper Term 1923.

THE JOHN E. THROPP’S SONS’ COMPANY

Defendant-A ppellant,

VS.

FRANK A. SEIBERLING.

Plaintiff-A ppellee.

BRIEF—AMICUS CURIAE.

HARRY FREASE,

Canton, Ohio,

Amicus Curiae.

SUBJECT INDEX.

BRIEF—Amicus Curiae ........................ l

WE UIE SA Wdliwa Wha ccad cduc hb csuceucuk 2

MS Ws BPMN ck oh cs bh cdc bad awkcdseen 2

NOE Sas Cea cae Cheek ance eee 8

WO A UO ne oss Sc hake bocce ckcckune 11

eer 12

Re ON ME xy sn kaka caso ak vewee eke 13

eallocsvesotes Mon ccocas..g SORT EO EE OTT EE: 14

DN ONE tos Cs A keneeiria reir Ce 14

POST ae MOEN. ok vos sca cs hema ee 15

WE Mie OUI oo ou bc uk ve he aW aca wun cues 16

ge Bh, ST BE NAAN Rg ety Ge al Ream OR RR FR 17

SOE iy MONON i inn oa i 0d Aas hw nde 18

ME Bi MIND kn ngs oo eee no coke ee 20

MUNN i MDs ok 5s Ck ks ced keene 20

Hanp Spinninc ApMitrep By Sravre .............. 23

PNRM Me PON ea 0c k ch bakin beeen 25

Hanp Spinninc Not Entirery Manvan ........... 26

NE Cece seewi coaches concen 8

Seymour Patent No. 80,836 ................. 28

Seymour Patent No. 376,167 ................ 3

Dewey Patent No. 438,407 .................. 33

Moore Patent No. 518,112 ................... 36

Jeffery Patent No. 607,245 .................. 39

Seiberling and Stevens Patent No. 762.561 .... 40

Vincent Patent No. 794,473 ................. 44

Mathern Belgian Patent No. 194,731 ............. 47

er Oe SE ee eee. tes 47-60

REA RA LS OS DC US TL EAA ale Ras EEE

PLAINTIFF’s ASSUMED THEORY «2... 600s eee ee renee

OpeRATION OF MATHERN’s SpunnrtnG Rous ......-.

Amount oF PRressuRE REQUIRED .......-++ eee eee

Action oF CENTRIFUGAL FORTE .......0-00 ee ee eee

Plaintiff’s Theory of Belgian Patent .........

Radial Stretch Theory ............-:-eeeeeeeeees

Judge Buffington’s Opinion ......-...6++eee-

Judge Denison’s Opinion .........+++eeeee-

Facts Do Not Fit the Theory .........--.-.

Beneficial Function of Centrifugal Force

State Patent No. 941,962 .............-5e eee eees

Method and Mode of Operation ...........-..---.

Authority Cited.

RoBINSON ON PATENTS .......cccccececccccscecees

No. SBR I8S.

In the Supreme Court of the United States

Octroser Term 1923.

Tue Joun E. Turopp’s Sons’ Company

Vs.

FRANK A. SEIBERLING.

BRIEF—AMICUS CURIAE.

A careful reading of the transcript and a consid-

eration of the exhibits impresses one with a feeling that

the issues involved can be readily resolved by a review

of the fundamental defense of anticipation, and the less

fundamental defense of no invention over the state of

the art; and with a belief that such a review will nat-

urally solve the other defenses which have been pre-

sented by the record, and which will no doubt be dis-

cussed more or less by Counsel for the respective parties

to the suit.

The fundamental defenses referred to are based

upon the alleged prior use and general knowledge of

the method or process which may be carried out by a

machine embodying the disclosure of the State patent

in suit; and upon the existence of sundry prior patents,

especially the Mathern Belgian patent, which are alleged

to disclose machines containing the same combinations

of parts which are included in the claims in suit of the

State patent, by which automobile tires have been or

ean be built by the same mode of operation which is said

to be inherent therein.

In any art, the knowledge, or at least the percep.

tion, of a process or method must necessarily precede

the conception and development of a machine or appa-

ratus for carrying out the process; and as in the pres

ent instance the history of the immediate art shown by

the record seems to have followed this natural course,

it will be more convenient to consider First, the method

or process of building tires for which the State machine

may be used; and Second, the prior patents which may

anticipate the claims of the State patent as the same

stand subject to the disclaimer of record.

PRIOR PRACTICE.

The defense of prior knowledge and general use of

the method or process which may be employed for build-

ing tires by the machine of the State patent, is based

primarily upon the testimony of numerous witnesses to

the effect that automobile tires were previously built on

‘apidly rotating cores by means of spinning whieels

manually applied, in the same manner that such tires

are built upon the State machine.

William W. Duncan of Watertown, Mass., president

of The Hood Tire Company engaged in selling auto.

mobile tires made by The Hood Rubber Company since

1914, who is also manager of the tire department of the

manufacturing company, which began making tires by

hand in the spring of 1906 and continuously made them

by hand from 1906 to 1911 (1-191, 2)*; deseribed how

the fabric was placed on the core, as follows:

‘*The core was mounted upon what was termed

the spider, this spider consisting of a hub with three

radial arms. Upon one of the arms was attached

a handle for the purpose of rotating the spider and

* Reference to the Transcript of Record.

core. The hub was bored to fit upon a projection

of the supporting arm upon which it would revolve. *

This supporting arm was curved in such a Way as

to miss hitting the core by about four to six inches,

and then curved back into the line of the plane of

the core, continuing in the line over the top of a

bench. It was held on the top of the bench by two

clamps one of which contained a set screw, so that

the core and spider could be held either in a vertical

or a horizontal position, or any position between,

by clamping or unclamping the set screw.

‘For applying the fabric to the core, the core

was placed in vertical position: a piece of fabric

was furnished the operator of proper width to cover

the core from side to side and approximately fwelve

per cent less in length than the circumferential

measure of the top of the core. I have omitted to

mention that on the hub of the spider was a pawl

attachment whereby the pawl engaging with the

hub could hold the core fixed in one position’’ (T-

192).

‘The operator took one end of the fabric in

his hands, throwing the balance of length over his

shoulder. He cemented a small spot on the top of

the core and attached the end of the fabric to this

spot. He then stretched the fabric from that spot

onto about eighteen inches of core circumference.

Then moved the position of the core so that the

point of contact with the fabrie was again at the

top position, setting the pawl to hold it again in

that position, and again stretched the fabric another

twelve to eighteen inches of the circumference. He

continued the stretching operation until the piece

of fabric covered the entire cireumference at. the

top of the core section, and lapped the end of the

fabrie about one inch over his starting point.

—_—_

*Italies used arbitrarily to emphasize important points and render subse-

quent reference thereto unnecessary.

LO LS Ss Pg CG CE EIN see le

‘This left the core with an endless piece of

fabrie covering its outer cireumference and because

the fabric was shorter than the outer cireumtference

of the core, made it conform to the cross section

contour down to a point between one and one and

thre e-quarter inches from the center line of circum-

ference, This amount would vary with the size of

the core; on a three inch core it would contact about

one inch from the center line of eireumference: on

a four and a half inch core it would contaet around

one and three quarter inches. But the point of con-

tact on the side would always end at approximately

the same percentage height above the cutting line

of the core. By the cutting line 1 mean the point

at the so-called toe of the bead where the tongue

of the core attaches. It is approximately the point

at which the toe of the bead is trimmed for remoy-

Ing exeess width of fabrie’’ (1-195).

**At the edge or end of the point of contact of

fabrie on the shoulder of the core, the remaining

width of the ply stood out at approximately right

angles to the core, because that was the length to

which the fabrie was cut before application. It was

then necessary to apply these skirts of fabric as we

ealled them to contact with the remainder of the

core as far down as the eutting line. This was done

with what was called a stitching or spinning roll,

which was simply an enlarged cake or pie crust

cutter with a larger wheel. The ordinary size of

spinning wheel ran from one and a half to two and

a half inches, and the edge went down to a sharp

cutting edge just blunted over by spinning against

an oil stone. This was a metal roll or wheel. The

wheel was held between two supports in the shape

of a yoke and a wooden handle attached.

**The ordinary method of operation for using

this roll or spinning tool on the fabrie and core for

applying was to unclamp the set screw on the bench

and turn the core and spider from a_ vertical to

——- ;

approximately a forty-five degree position, then to

clamp the supporting arm so as to hold the core

and spider in that position. The pawl was then

released from the hub so that the core and spider

could revolve on the support, and with the handle

previously mentioned as attached to one of the

arms of the spider, the core was revolved rapidly.

Because of its weight, approximately one hundred

and fifty to two hundred and fifty pound, it would

maintain its speed of revolution for some consider.

able time.

**While it was revolving the operator would

take the spinning tool in his hand and apply it to

the revolving core and fabric at the end of the point

of contact caused by the stretching, allowing it to

revolve against the fabric and core with manual

pressure applied. He would then gradually move

it down, as the core and fabric revolved, in a radial

line, towards the cutting point of the core, until the

fabrie was completely applied to the entire surface

of the core on one side. The operator would then

shift the position of his core and spider to approxi-

mately forty-five degrees on the opposite side of the

vertical position and with his spinning tool apply

the opposite side or skirt of the fabric in the same

manner.

“While it was ordinary practice to spin down

one side at a time, I have seen workmen spin it in

a vertical position using a roller in each hand to

save time. But as I say, it was not ordinary he-

cause very tiring’’ (1-194),

“The following plies of fabrie were applied

in the same way until the proper thickness of tire

careass was built up.”’

‘The method as described above of putting

down one side at a time was used from 1906, by all

our operators. The use of a roll in each hand was

not at all ordinary. It was too hard on the men to

use the two rollers throughout a day’s work.’

ed ET yg A RD OE Bee ALBAN OS ACV deilie dD a eH AIL

‘At that time | was manager of the experi-

mental department, which made out all construction

and operating orders for mill methods.’

‘*T not only saw it, but did it myself.’’

‘The fabrie stood out at approximately right

angles to the plane of the core. The roller was

applied to the fabrie on the core at approximately

an angle of forty-five degrees to the plane of the

eore’’? (1-195).

On eross examination, Dunean testified as follows:

‘**We have made tires with stretch from eight

to twenty-four (per cent). J used twelve because

it is about as much as the ordinary hand worker

will pal. This might vary on an actual hand made

tire as high as seventeen per cent.”’

‘This will vary with different companies. We

preferred to get seventeen.’

‘*Because that brought what we called the

neutral line of fabric to the best position on the side

of the tire which could be obtained with manual

stretching’’ (1-197).

‘*‘When the fabric is cut to a length and width

for application to the core, it is cut on the bias, and

the warp and filler lines are at forty-five degrees

angles to the length of the strip, or a ninety degree

angle to each other.

‘*In order to apply such a flat strip to the en-

tire surface of the core, it is necessary to make the

length of the strip at about a medium circumfer-

ence of the core.

‘As it is stretched on at the top of the core,

the warp and filler yarns naturally change from a

ninety degree angle to each other. From that point

to the cutting line, the angle is again changed to a

greater than ninety degree difference relative to

the circumferential line. The «oad service shows

that the nearer this neutral line, or the point at

which the warp and filler threads remain at a ninety

degree angle, is to the bead seat position of the rim

on the tire, the better the tire will run. A seven-

teen per cent stretch brought this line down toward

the cutting line of the core about as far as could

be cbtained by manual stretching’? (1-198).

‘That (method of hand spinning) was the way

we fold all our operators.”’

‘The only time that a saw-tooth movement of

a stitcher or a spading tool need be used is when a

wrinkle develops in the application by the spinning

roll in the hand spinning which necessitates lifting

the fabric from the core and straightening out the

wrinkle. With a skilled operator who did not move

his spinning tool too rapidly toward the cutting line

in the radial line of the core, the necessity for the

use of a saw-tooth movement or the spade for

straightening out a wrinkle never developed. If

the operator moved the tool too rapidly, he might

develop one or two wrinkles which would be re-

moved by the saw-tooth or the spade’’ (1-199).

‘“In such cases, which were very seldom, we

always used the spade, in substantially a radial

direction at the place where the wrinkle occurred

to eradicate it’? (1-200).

Upon being asked what amount of pressure was

being employed to hold the stitcher against the core,

Dunean replied that:

‘‘In determining the amount necessary to ap-

ply on machine rollers, we found that tests on the

hand pressure as near as we could develop

amounted to about a one hundred pound spring.”’

“T should say it would vary from twenty-five

to a hundred and fifty pounds according to how

tired the man was”’ (1-200).

Upon being asked whether there was any tendency

of the hand held roller to slip when on the side of the

SONY SATEEN SH EIA hem SREY TRE eras IN RI»

core when great pressure was applied to it, Dunean an-

swered:

‘*Not when a spinning wheel of about two and a

half-inches diameter was used. A= small wheel

would have a tendency to let the skirt of fabrie cateh

the supporting voke and jerk it out of position. * * *

The first wheels were about an inch in diameter but

were almost immediately increased from two to two

and a half-inches. * * * The smaller ones were

abandoned” (1-201).

Upon being asked whether in two successive opera-

tions, the first on one side of the core, and the second

on the other side of the core, the amount of pressure

would be uniform, he replied that—

**T should say very unlikely, but it is immate-

rial, providing the fabrie is applied smoothly.

* * * T mean the circumferential stretch because

that governs radial stretch’? (1-202).

Upon being asked whether he regarded the cireum-

ferential stretch applied initially as the important

thing and the side pressure subsequently applied as rel-

atively unimportant, Dunean’s testimony was that—

‘The amount of side pressure need be only

sufficient to apply the fabric smoothly. The adhe-

sion is obtained during the molding operation”

(1-203).

And upon being asked whether there was any differ-

ence in product due to the personal equation or due to

possible vagaries or lack of attention he replied that—

‘““We did not notice any, we had a good in-

spection system’’ (1-203).

Tod J. Mell of Akron, Ohio, technical adviser to the

superintendent of The Firestone Tire & Rubber Com-

pany, was connected with The Republic Rubber Com-

pany of Youngstown, Ohio, from 1905 for eleven years,

first as manager of the tire department for five years,

and then as experimental engineer (1-152, 3). Mell said

that they made tires by hand at the Republic company

in the fall of 1905, and got the department well under

way in 1906, and deseribed how the fabrie was put on

the core, as follows:

“The fabrie was cut the proper width on the

bias, a strip made the proper length to reach round

the core of the tire, after being stretched. 1 should

have said at first that the core was cemented, in

order that the fabric would stick to the iron. After

the ply had been stretched on the core and spliced,

it was rolled down, starting at the tread and work-

ing down well over the sides. As the fabrie was

stretched, it tended to lay down to some extent over

the sides of the core. The operator, after he had

rolled the tread, rotated the core until a sufficient

speed was obtained, and then, at first by means of

his roller, and later with his stitcher, rolled the

fabric on to the core’? (1-153).

“The motion was then stopped and the tire

turned in a horizontal position; and in this position

the operator finished working the fabrie on to the

core. The plies were put on in this manner until

sufficient plies under the bead had been placed; ther,

the bead was placed and additional plies of fabrie

stretched, and rolled on to the tire; after which the

tire was trimmed at the bead and the rubber side

wall and tread applied. The tire was then cured in:

the usual manner that all full-molded tires are

eured in’’ (1-154).

Mell said that “Owing to the centrifugal force, the

tdges of the fabric stood away from the core to some

ettent’’; and that the method described by him was

the regular practice at the Republic Company in 1906

(I-154).

Upon cross examination, Mell said that the method

described by him ‘‘Was the accepted method up until

the time a machine was used,’’ and that no other meth-

od was employed in the Republic plant, ‘Except pos-

> Also that the

same method was used on all sizes of tires by the Re-

public company ‘‘Up to and including 5-inch’’ (1-155),

sibly experimental method or methods.’

Upon having his attention called to the ‘‘recipro-

eating stitching method,’’ Mell testified that :—

‘*Atter the fabric was applied to the core and

the tire spun and the operator had worked down

with his stitcher, while the tire was spinning, all

the tabrie that he could, he stopped the core and

used the paddle, and sometimes a stitcher, to stretch

the fabric and make it lay smoothly the balance of

the space to the inside diameter of the tire. I

wouldn't say that he worked it down that way. The

path shown in the sketch is at an angle with the

radial line of the tire. The method used in stretch-

ing the fabric on with a paddle was to stretch very

near to the radial line; In other words, we worked

towards the axis of the tire, instead of at an angle”

(1-155, 6).

Upon being asked whether the Republic company

ever employed the reciprocating stitching action all the

way down to the bead line, Mell said that—

‘*T do not believe that we ever did. All of the

tires were rolled down to some extent, varying with

the experience of the operator, before the paddle

was used’’ (J-156).

When asked whether on a small core having a cross

section of say three inches, with a fabric stretch of 18

or 20 per cent elongation, there was very little additional

forming action necessary to apply the fabric to the side

of the core, Mell replied that—

‘Yes, not a great deal of the additional form-

ing need be done. However, the fabric had to be

applied without wrinkles; and even on a small tire

this took considerable care, the fabric never coming

down where it lay on the core in its correct posi-

tion.

‘“‘Certain companies, in order to make the oper-

ation of applying the fabric easy, stretch their plies

to a considerable extent; but even when this is done

I would not say that they relied principally upon

the stretch, as it was always necessary to place the

fabric in its proper position by other means’’ (1-

157).

Walter S. Koplin, an employee and sometime inspec-

tor of The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, was en-

gaged with The Diamond Rubber Company in the work

of making hand built tires some four years from 1903,

and served as an inspector for seven years thereafter

(1-92, 3); deseribed how they put the fabric on the core

when he built tires there by hand, as follows:

“We stretched fabrie on by hand, and we made

our splice; then we rolled it on top—Oh, about three

inches, I should judge; and we were supposed to

stitch it down, but when a man got used to it they

would start the core to spinning as fast as it could

and the fabric stuck out—why, we let it run that

way until we got clear down to the bead. Then, of

course, it would bring it down into the groove of the

bead and then right over the edge’’ (1-93).

On cross examination, Koplin testified that in break-

ing in new men the rule was to “To stitch the plies down

by hand,”’ but that “After we would break them in, they

would naturally break away from the hand building, and

as I told you before, spin the tire”’ (1-96).

On being asked how much weight he estimated is

used in Firestone machines for holding the stiteher or

FLEE ICDL Lhe a Da hee a Th nat eB AEE

forming-roll on the tire against the core Koplin an-

swered—

‘‘T should say there isn’t any more than a man

can use. * * * Just what a person could bear his

weight against there, and his strength too—bears

right up against the tire. * * * I should judge it

would be about 30 or 40 Ibs’’ (1-98, 9).

Charles H. Drach of Akron, Ohio, an employee of

The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, worked for The

Diamond Rubber Company for three months in 19065,

and went back in 1906 and worked there about four

vears and eight months (1-99). When he went to the

Diamond in 1906 he built tires by hand, and described

how he put the fabric on the core, as follows:

‘Well, we first cemented the core, and started

the ply on top of the iron core, and pulled it

around: then we took and spun the core real fast,

and held stitcher against it, right down to the bead

line’’ (1-100).

Drach says that when he spun the core real fast the

edges of the fabric were *‘ Right out, right out straight”’;

that when he went to the Diamond company in 1906 he

did this spinning down of the fabrie—

‘Right away, when the rest of them was doing

it I started, right away. * * * They all done it, the

gang I was in, twelve men”’ (1-100).

On cross examination, Drach referred to the so-

called ‘‘stitching method’’ and said that ‘‘/t drawed the

stock to the core more by spinning it than it did by

stitching it’? (1-103); and upon redirect examination, he

said that in his own experience he got ‘*.More stretch

with spinning”? (1-105).

¥ <—a

Cary D. Derry of Kent, Ohio, an employee of The

Firestone Tire & Rubber Company worked for The Dia-

mond Rubber Company in the forepart of 1904 in mak-

ing hand built tires (1-107); and deseribed how they put

the fabrie on the eore in building those tires by hand,

as follows:

‘Well, we pull the fabrie on by hand. The core

is cemented all over. We pulled it around by hand.

And to stitch the fabrie down you were supposed

to stitch it by stroke, Practically all of them did”?

(1-107).

Derry further testified that they ‘Spun the core

and used the stitcher’’; also that when they spun the

core the fabrie took ‘Kind of an upward course, flared

out’; that they spun the core ‘‘Fast as we could”’

(1-107) ; and described the use of the stiteher when they

spun the core, as follows:

‘Well, spin the core, get it going as fast as you

could; take your stitecher and hold it just about

that angle, as near as I can tell you; be about forty-

five degrees, wouldn't it’? (1-108),

On cross examination, Derry explained that they

spun the core to give it a high velocity—

**To make your number good deal easier, to get

the speed to pull the fabric down. Run it on low

speed, wouldn’t flare out; on high speed, it would

flare out. * * * So that the fabrie wouldn’t wrinkle”’

(1-111).

Derry said further that if you rotated the core at

a less velocity:

“The stitcher wouldn't take a hold. Vf the fab-

rie wouldn't flare out, the stiteher wouldn’t take

hold. As fast as the eore would go the fabrie would

flare out and give the stitcher a chance to take

hold’’ (1-112),

As to the amount of pressure exerted in holding

the stitcher or forming roll against the side of the tire,

Derry said that ‘‘J showd judge in the neighborhood of

25 or 30 lbs., along there, as near as I can tell you’’

(1-112); and also that I don’t think there would be very

much of a variation’’ of pressure on the two sides of

the tire (1-113).

William Heller of Akron, Ohio, an inspector of tire

carcasses at the factory of The Firestone Tire & Rub-

ber Company, started work with The Diamond Rubber

Company in 1901 and stayed there for about four years,

and started building tires in 1902 (1-115), as follows:

‘‘At the time, why, we pulled it on in first place

on wooden core, and then we experimented getting

it down most any ways; used to pull it down with

pliers, wire pliers, nail it fast with tacks, tacked it

down; worked it down, stitched it down, worked the

core; then we used to have a paddle there; we used

to chop it down; that’s what the boys used to call

it them days—chop it down’’ (1-116).

About two years later, in 1904, they began making

tires on iron cores, as follows:

‘‘T pulled the fabric on in the ply. Always cut

in plies. And then, after the plies were on the tire,

splices made, either stitch it down by hand or whirl

the core, hold the stitcher against the core and spin

it right down’’ (1-116).

Heller said further that they whirled the core

“Just as fast as we could. That depends on the size of

the core. Heavier the core the faster it spun’’; and

that when the core was spinning fast, the edges of the

fabric took a position ‘‘ straight out’’ (1-117).

Louis Stark of Akron, Ohio, General Tire Depart-

ment foreman of The Miller Rubber Company, began

making tires by hand at The Diamond Rubber Company

on wooden cores in 1901] and 1902, and on iron cores

about 19038 (1-125, 6). Stark said that the fabric was

put on the iron cores, as follows:

‘We pulled the fabrie on by hand. The first

ply was made up in an endless band. * * * Pulled

them on by hand, * * * Well, there is a number of

Ways you could do that. I used to do it the quickest

Way—spinning the core, holding your stitcher on the

side of the fabrie and running the ply down. * * *

Well, I started it right after I started to build tires

there on iron eores, * * * Well, now, I don’t know

as I can say just how fast the core was going; but

you had to spin it just as fast as you could possibly

get it to spin. * * * Well, the faster you would spin

the core, the fabric would stand out like this,—right

out straight from the core”? (1-126, 7).

On cross examination, Stark thought he was able to

press the stitcher against the core with the same amount

of pressure as that now ordinarily imparted to a Spin-

ning or forming roll in the present well-known form of

carcass making machine, and testified as follows:

“*T couldn’t say how much pressure I did put on.

I never had any idea at all. I always got enough

on there to get them down where they should be’’

(1-128),

In further cross examination, Stark said that he did

not think the pressure was great enough to retard the

rotation of the core ‘because it kept on spinning all

the time’? (T- 129),

William G. Green of Akron, Ohio, an employee of

The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company ever since 1906,

Was previously employed by The B. F. Goodrich Com-

pany, and while there made automobile tires on iron

“res (1-136). Green deseribed how they put the fabrie

‘n the cores when he made tires at the Goodrich plant,

’s follows:

“We hung a core up on posts. We had posts

with pins sticking out, and we hung it up by hand

and pulled the fabrie on.

“We had to spin the table around and stitch it

down by hand.

“Why, we had a revolving table, and use a

paddle sometimes, and lots of times we used th

stitcher most of the time, well, biggest part of the

time.”’

(Tt) was a ball-bearing table, and they whirled

it, see? get it going fast, and they held the stitcher

there.’’ (1-136, 7).

Green testified further, that he did that himself and

that he had seen other men at the Joodrich plant stitch

down the fabrie by whirling the core as described; and

upon being asked what position did the edges of the

fabric take, replied:

“Well, the upper edge of the fabric on top

would flare up, vaturally” (1-137).

Green also said that the core was whirled ‘‘as fast

as we could whirl it. The faster the better.’

Warren C. Gregg of Akron, Ohio, an inspector of

tires at The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company for some

eight vears, worked for The Diamond Rubber Company

twice before that time, leaving the first time in 1907

(1-146,7): and when he was there the first time, made

tires by hand, as follows:

“We had. to start with, a band; it was an end-

less band: that two of us stretched over a core.

Then we worked it down with a stitcher.

“Well, if we worked it down according to eur

instructions, it was done with stroke. Often they

would spin the core, and then would hold the stitch

er against the sides ot the core: hold the stiteher

there—of course, if we had speed enough to start

with, we would run it clear down.

‘**Well, we figured on spinning it fast enough

to make it run until we got this fabric run down to

the bead line’’ (1-147).

When asked what position did the edge of the fabric

take, Gregg answered— ‘Why, ordinary stand straight

out, flare out’’; and said further that he saw other men

spin down the fabric in this way at that time (1-147).

Mark W. Roe of Akron, Ohio, a Mechanical Engi-

neer engaged as Consulting Engineer with The Republic

Rubber Company since 1917, was Assistant Engineer

with The Diamond Rubber Company, and its successor

The B. F. Goodrich Company, from April 1907 until

August 1915 (1-167). Roe testified that tires were made

by hand at the Diamond Company in 1907 and deseribed

how the fabric was formed on the core at that time, as

follows:

‘*The fabric was received by the men cut in

bias strips. The ends of these strips were placed

upon the core and stretched around the core by the

manual power of the operator, after which the core,

with the ply of fabric, was revolved by hand, and

spinning wheel or stitcher, hand-operated, was used

for stitching down the fabric around what would

form the bead.”’

‘The core was caused to rotate by the left hand

of the operator, spinning tool being held in the right

hand, the spinning end of the tool downward, and

forced against the tire, usually starting from the

center or outside periphery and worked in a spiral

line, forcing the fabric to the core, as the spinning

tool was advanced, radially toward the center of

the core.

“It would be hard to say, but T should judge

(the core is rotated) from 50 to 60 revolutions per

minute. It would average about that’’ (1-167-8).

On cross examination, Roe testified that—

‘*So far as I remember, wrinkles or uneven

places obtained in stitching a tire were smoothed

out by paddle or stitecher along the principle as

shown in the ‘Sawtovth Path Sketch’ ’’ (1-170),

“To the best of my knowledge, it was in com-

mon use at the Diamond plant,—to stitch them down

that way. I mean in common use to stitch them

down by the stitcher, by rotating the core’’ (1-171).

Upon being asked whether the amount of pressure

exerted on the stitcher in following the spiral path is

more or less immaterial, Roe said that—

‘*No, it should not be less than a_ certain

amount, nor greater than a certain other amount,

the definite limits of which I have not fixed.’’

Harvey J. Bittaker of Akron, Ohio, Assistant Mana-

ger of the Cord Tire Department of The Firestone Tire

& Rubber Company since 1913, was employed from 1896

to 1913 as inspector and foreman in the Bicyele Depart-

ment and as inspector and foreman in the construction

of automobile tires with The Diamond Rubber Company

(1-173, 4). Bittaker said that The Diamond Company

began making automobile tires on iron cores about the

year 1900, and continued that practice until sometime

thereafter, and described how they put the fabric on

the iron core, as follows:

‘*The construction of the tire began by the

application of a first ply, which was put on ina

band form. The core was then revolved, and the

plies were stitched down on the side of the core,

additional plies being added that were not put on

in the band form were rolled and stitched down in

a similar manner’’ (1-174).

‘“‘There was no roller used on the band ply;

but the several additional plies were rolled down,

__ an . _

that is, on top of the core, with a flat roller, and

some with a curvature roller. They were rolled

down to a point on the core about half way between

the top and the bead line. Then the stitcher was

applied, and the balance of the fabric was stitched

down with a stitcher about three and a half inches

in diameter, and about a one-sixteenth inch face’’

(1-174, 5).

**In the early stages of the tire construction,

rotating of the core while stitching down the plies

was sort of termed as a criminal offense among the

employees. Shortly after the tire construction had

advanced, it was more common to see the workmen

rotate the core at a very high speed while applying

the fabrie with the stitcher’’ (1-175).

‘*About the year 1902 or 1903’ (1-175).

‘‘The edges of the fabrie were sort of flared

out or spread out on the sides while the core was

being rotated’’ (1-175, 6).

On cross examination, Bittaker explained why the

hand-spinning operation at the Diamond plant was re-

garded as a species of criminal offense, as follows:

‘*In the beginning of tire construction, it was

more theoretical than anything else that the threads

of which the fabric was composed could not be kept

at a 45-degree angle while being applied to the tire,

if stitched down while the core was rotating; but,

after the mechanics who were studying the prop-

osition got into it more thoroughly, they found out

that applying the fabrie while the core was spin-

ning was not detrimental to the tire, as they had

previously thought’’ (1-180).

In explaining why the workmen preferred to use

the hand spinning method, rather than this saw tooth

method, Bittaker said that—

“The fabrie could be applied more easily and

in less time, naturally.’’

‘They considered that the hand spinning was

not so laborious. It was easier, but wasn’t quicker,

Easier on their arm. That was the point.’

**Yes, it was quicker as well as easier’’ (1-182),

Talcut I. Curtis of Trenton, N. J., was demonstrator

for the DeLaski & Thropp Cireular Woven Tire Com-

pany, and made tires for them by hand in 1905 (1-293).

He described how he put the fabric on the core in mak-

ing tires in 1905, as follows:

‘“We mounted the core on a three pronged

spider stand, cemented the core, stretched the fabric

on, spliced it, and then rolled it down with a three-

inch stitcher, rolling stitcher.

‘“‘The rolling down I did in two ways: First,

holding the stiteher with both hands, by rotating

the core first, holding the stitecher with both hands,

going down one side and then down the other side.”

“The other method was in revolving the core

with the left hand and stitching down with the right,

turning the core from the other side—spinning it

down’? (1-294).

Curtis said further that when the core was rotating

in the first method—*The edges flared out to a certain

extent according to the swiftness of the core’’ (1-294);

and also that he followed the same method at the Em-

pire plant in 1906.

Concerning the use of wooden spades Curtis testified

that—

‘sWell, I used, sometimes the spade at that

time. We used them both possibly at that time,

some. Some fabric is stiffer than others and so on,

and they changed over to the other methods possi-

bly a little’? (1-296).

Thomas A. Walch of Trenton, N. J., foreman of the

Tire Manufacturing Department of Ajax Rubber Com-

pany, was employed by the Ajax company for thirteen

years from 1906 and in that year made tires by hand

(1-285, 6). Walch described how they applied.the fabric

to the core, as follows:

‘*Well, we had three and four prong spiders;

we would have a slot in the core and we would put

it on this spider; then we had a wrench to tighten

it up with serews on the top—adjustable screws:

you could turn it until you got it tight enough: then

we mounted the core and put a little cement across

the top and all around the side, about half way of

the core; then we started our fabric and started to

pull it on just as hard as we could, cut it off and

spliced it; and then We would start and turn our

core around just as fast as we could, and then we

would take this stiteher, three inch. stitcher they

‘alled it, a steel stitcher, about a sixteenth of an

inch on the point, and we would go right in like

that (indicating) toward the bead and the same on

the other side’’ (1-286).

When asked what position did the edges of the

fabrie take when you turned the core as fast as you

could, Walch said—

“*Well it stuck out, just like that (indicating)

laid out’’ (1-286)

On being asked in cross examination, whether men

when they first started would use a wooden spade to

spin the fabrie down on the core in the way that Walch

did it, he answered

“No, not with the wooden spade: you had to

have it stationary; went all around it and took much

longer to do it.”’

‘Well, the new fellows that would start in, they

would always do it with the spade starting in, be

cause it was quite a knack to do it with the stitcher.

~ "e MERE ETRE HT = Wed : =

1 ARE RO Be OCT ORRN Nn NS Ra at PMO MS 2 RAs LEO ANA TORE:

DEI PEEK LOTTIE IEP a ie OD ea

- GREE

We learned a lot of new men there and they did not

quite get the knack of doing it right away’? (1-288),

As to whether the quality of fabric tires and their

durability has materially improved in the last thirteen

years (previous to 1919), Walch testified that—

‘Well, we use the same kind of fabric, very

near the same kind of compound. 1 don’t know as

they have durability any better. I believe the hand

made tire was considered just as good as far as

durability goes as a machine made tire’’ (1-288).

On this subject Walch said further that they got

as good mileage out of hand made tires in 1906 as they

do out of machine made tires today, and that “They

were guaranteed five thousand miles’? in 1906, **the

same as they are today’’ (1-289).

As to the amount of pressure to which he applied

the stitcher to the side of the core, Walch said that—

“Well, it was not a great pressure—just enough

to stick the fabric to the cement; there was some

on the inside, just to touch the fabric: very little

pressure * * * not to amount to anything; you had

to hold the stitcher steady; that is the way you held

it, the pressure, you didn’t have to put on much

pressure at all’ (1-290).

Walch said that the Ajax company used a stretch

of ‘tsix per cent’? in applying the layer originally to

the core by the hand spinning method, his experience

being confined entirely to the Ajax practice.

In summarizing the testimony of the foregoing wit-

nesses, an effort has been made to include only those

statements which are not affected or modified in any

manner by the rigid cross examination to which they

were subjected; and it is believed that the testimony

which has been quoted stands undisputed in the record

and may be accepted as conclusive of the facts set forth

therein, without the need of any argument to establish

the same.

It is only necessary to note that some confusion

oceasionally arises from the frequent use of the words

‘stitching roll’’ or ‘‘ stitching wheel,’ to designate the

spinning roll or spinning wheel; and this fact sometimes

makes it difficult to understand whether a witness was

referring to the ‘treciprocating”’’ or ‘*saw-tooth’’ meth-

od which may be practiced, either by a ‘‘spade’’ or

‘“paddle’’ or by a ‘stitching’? roll, or to the ‘‘spinning”’

method which is also practiced by the use of a ‘‘stitch-

ing’’ roll.

The testimony of the witnesses will be more readily

understood if it is remembered that the ‘‘stitching”’

method can only be practiced by hand when the core is

stationary or rotating very slowly; while the ‘‘spin-

ning’ method can only be practiced by rotating or spin-

ning the core very rapidly.

Hand Spinning Admitted by State.

In view of the common practice of hand spinning

tires in many factories prior to the development of the

State machine, it is not surprising that the previous

use of this method was recognized in the specification

of the State patent, as follows:

“The spinning-rolls 147 are preferably mount-

ed on ball-bearings or similar anti-friction mechan-

ism for they revolve at high speed and exert con-

siderable pressure on the fabric. * * * The spin-

ning-rolls are also shown as spring-pressed toward

the plane of the ring-core by springs 145.* * These

springs exert the pressure against the fabric for

forming it against the sides of the core which would

be exerted by the arm of the workman in case of @

the

SRI AI RD iW EEO, IY PARR IIIS ale NDS a ae

ENA nea

hand-tool or a hand-pressed roll’’ (Lines 93 to 117,

page 5 of the State patent. II-19).

Nor is it surprising that the patentee testified to

knowledge of the hard spinning method, prior to

the time he began his experiments, as follows:

*Q.48. Now, I want to eall your attention to

another alleged system of making tires by hand,

which we will call the ‘hand-spinning’ method, which

is distinguished from the sawtooth method you have

already described by the fact that a wheel-stitcher

was employed to roll down the unattached skirts,

the core being rotated with some alleged degree of

rapidity, and the stitcher being held in the hand and

gradually advanced by the operator over the side

of the rotating core. Do you know what | mean

by this description?

“A. Yes, I do.

Q.49. Was that method ever used in the

Goodyear plant prior to the time that you began

your experiments you have already referred to?

‘©\. T never knew it to.

“Q.50. Had you ever seen that method em-

ployed prior to the time you began your experi-

ments?

“A, No, I had not.

“(Q.51. Had you ever heard of it?

“4. Yes, I had heard of it (1-308).

*Q.52. Do you remember how you heard of

it?

“A. I had heard of that through McDonald.

*Q.53. But you had never seen it actually—

‘©. Had never seen it operated.

Q.54. Did MeDonald ever demonstrate it, or

illustrate it, to you in actual practice?

‘A. Yes.

*6Q.55. What was your purpose in having this

‘Jlustration and demonstration of the handspinning

method made to you by McDonald?

‘‘A. I had started an experiment, and asked

him to roll it down for me with the spinning roller.

**@. 96. You say that you started a series of

experiments some time in the year 1907, with the

idea of obtaining a commercial machine. Did Me-

Donald’s demonstration and illustration of this

handspinning method form any part of these ex-

periments?

“A. It did” (1-300).

The patentee also recognized the prior existence and

use of hand stitching rolls, by including an illustration of

the same in ‘‘Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 8—Sketches of Ex-

perimental Work, (3rd Device)’’; the same being desig-

nated *‘4 A’’ in the sketch, and being described in his

testimony as a ‘*Standard Stitcher-Roller’”’ (1-3 3).

Furthermore, State says that in his ‘*Sketeh 15”’

(II-97), the figure at the top, to the left, entitled ‘* Hand

stiteher-wheel,’’ is intended to represent the ordinary

hand stitcher-wheel in use prior to the beginning of his

experiments (1-368).

And finally, Arthur R. Mackey, plaintiff’s own wit-

ness, who worked for the Diamond company in 1908

or 1909—hetween 1907 and 1909, first as a tire builder

and afterwards as an inspector of tire construction, de-

seribed an unofficial method employed there for forming

the sides of the ply to the core, as follows:

‘We first stretched the ply of fabric on the eore,

and then spun the core as rapidly as we could by

hand, and then rolled the fabric down on the side of

the core by a stitcher held in the hand by the oper-

ator, moving the hand inwardly down toward the

~ ———7.

bead, When the plies were stretched on tight and

even, we could spin down to the bead, and sometimes

out to the heel of the bead’’ (1-416).

“The stitcher of smaller diameter was the first

small stitcher used ir tire construction; and after.

wards found that the hub of the = stitcher would

buckle into the plies too often, and larger stitcher

was made. These larger stitchers we got at the

hardware store, our own buy; we bought them our-

selves.

“The factories did furnish some, but that was

in the first initiating of those first stitehers; and the

workmen bought a good many of them themselves”

(1-427).

This testimony, produced by the plaintiff, shows

that the larger sized stitchers, which were particularly

used in the hand spinning operation, were in such com-

mon use in 1907 or 1908 that they were obtainable as an

article of merchandise in a hardware store.

Hand Spinning Not Entirely Manual.

It is interesting, if not important, to note that the

9°

so called **hand spinning’? method of building tires is

not entirely a manual operation, but involves the use

of a circular core mounted on a spindle for rapid rota-

tion, and also the use of a disk-like spinning roll, also

mounted on a spindle for rapid rotation; and as each

one is a wheel, axially journaled for turning when power

is applied, to that extent each one is a machine, and both

were used in carrying out the hand spinning method.

This fact seems to be important because, whether

or not ‘There is no true combination between State's

revolving core and his independent spinning tool,’’ as

was said by Cireuit Judge Denison in deciding the

Firestone case (Pet. for Cert. p. 34); it does not seem

necessary to determine that question in the present case,

for the reason that the exact association of mechanical

elements, Whether it be aggregation or combination, was

present in the prior practice of hand spinning tires.

At any event, the prior practice shown by all the

witnesses who have testified on this point, and admitted

by State the patentee, completely anticipates the meth-

od, and the mode of operation of the machine of the

State patent; including the initial longitudinal stretching

of the fabric, the application of the same around the

tread portion of a core, the rapid rotation of the core,

the spinning down of the fabric on the sides of the core

gradually by radially moving spinning rolls pressed

against the sides of the core, and the action of cen-

trifugal force to throw out the unattached skirts of the

fabric from the sides of the core to frictionally engage

around the edges of the spinning rolls and be radially

stretched thereby.

PRIOR PATENTS.

Although the quasi manual method of building auto-

mobile tires was well known and in common practice be-

fore a more mechanical apparatus was developed for per-

forming the same process; the same methods, in all sub-

stantial respects, had long been used in the work of spin-

ning metal sheets and bievele tires, by apparatus having

the same association of mechanical parts and the same

modes of operation, in every substantial respect.

Among the representative prior patents appearing

in the record, are three machine or apparatus patents

for spinning metal sheets; and a reading of these pat-

ents shows that they disclose associated devices for per-

forming the same functions by the same means and by

the same methods, which were subsequently employed

for building automobile tires.

The early Seymour patent, No. 80,836 of August 11,

1868, for an Improvement in Machinery for Spinning or

Burnishing Articles of Sheet Metal, explains the objects

and purposes of the patented invention, as follows:

‘‘Machines have heretofore been made for

operating upon disks of sheet metal, to spin them up

to the shape of a chuck or former, the said chuck or

former and the sheet metal revolving against a

roller that is held to said sheet metal by a slide-rest,

to which motion is given to cause the roller to move

along the surface of the chuck or former, as may be

seen in the French patent of Japy Brothers, dated

March 1, 1836.

‘“‘The nature of my said invention consists in

mechanism for holding a roll or burnisher with a

yielding or elastic power against the revolving sheet

metal and former, so that the spinning up of articles

of sheet metal ean be done with a tool that is held by

mechanism that will yield to the curvatures of the

former or chuck, and operate similarly to the spi

ning of sheet-metal articles by hand.

‘*By my mechanism, irregular shapes, such as

used for lamps, oil-eans, ete., can be spun up with

great speed and precision by a workman with but

little experience or bodily strength, while the spin-

ning of large articles of sheet metal has heretofore

required a workman with considerable experience

and bodily strength to hold the tool.

Early Seymour Patent No. 80,836 (II-324).

‘‘My improvements are adapted to spinning up

of regular conical articles in sheet metal, but are

more particularly available in spinning up orna-

mental articles formed with curved sides or angular

bends, forming bands or varying shaped circular

articles, now spun up by hand or pressed up in dies.”’

‘*By the apparatus constructed as aforesaid, the

workman is relieved from the labor of holding the

tool while the spinning operation is performed, and

he is able to guide and direct his tool with precision,

in a manner corresponding generally to that eim-

ployed in turning metals with a slide-rest; and, in

addition to the yielding foree applied to the tool,

to cause it to conform to the shape of the chuck or

former, the screw r and hand-wheel p place the tool

under the direction of the attendant, and if the

spring v is too powerful for any particular charac-

ter of work, its force may be lessened by the hand

acting to draw back the lever w’’ (11-325, 6).

This first Seymour patent recognizes an earlier

practice of spinning sheet metal articles by hand, and as

clearly shown in the drawings and described in_ the

specification, the quasi mechanical apparatus set forth in

the patent embodies a power driven, revolving mandrel,

and a cooperating spinning roller mechanically mounted

for moving along the mandrel at a retreating angle from

the direction of its movement, and with a yrelding pres-

sure against the surface thereof; and it may be asked at

this point—What more does the State patent set forth,

with respect to the association and mode of operation of

the spinning roll and revolving core?

As the machine or apparatus of this patent operates

upon disks of sheet metal, forming regular conical arti-

cles or ornamental articles with curved sides, it is evi-

dent that there must be a radial elongation or displace-

ment of the metal in the disk corresponding to the

circumferential contraction of the same necessary to

form the reduced diameter of the sides of the article ;

just as there is said to be a radial stretch and longitudi-

nal constriction of the edge of the fabric in an auto-

mobile tire.

The later Seymour patent, No. 376,167 of January

10, 1888, for Improvement in Machines for Shaping

Wrought-Metal Cylinders or Shells, describes the ma-

chine, which is well illustrated in the drawing, as fol-

lows:

| OU

7 ve

Later Seymour Patent No. 376,167 (II-328).

pusare

‘*This machine comprises a base portion or bed-

plate, upon which are erected columns or posts, and a

head or top plate surmounting such columns or

posts. It also has a central rotary mandrel or

spindle, upon which the cylinder to be operated upon

is placed, and a rotary and screw-actuated steadi-

ment, which may be brought down upon the closed

end of the cylinder to hold it upon the mandrel or

spindle. By the rotation of the mandrel or spindle

the eylindrie shell to be operated upon, whether in a

heated or cold state, is turned or rotated. At oppo-

site sides of the central mandrel or spindle are two

carriages, each containing a slide having mounted

upon it a rotary spinning wheel or tool, and by means

of vertical feed-screws these carriages and _ their

slides and tools are moved upward and downward or

traversed along the cylinder.

‘“The two carriages are mounted upon slideways

or guides, which may be pivoted at one end, as at the

top, and adjustable by means of adjusting-screws to-

ward and from the central mandrel or spindle at

their lower ends. As the carriages and their slides

and tools are traversed up or down by the feed-

screws, they will follow the direction of these slide-

ways or guide-bars, and if the slideways or guide-

bars are set with an inward inclination toward the

central mandrel or spindle the carriages and their

slides and tools as they traverse downward will be

gradually moved inward toward the mandrel or

spindle, and will thereby impart to the cylindric

shell operated upon a downward-tapering form, such

as would be required for the air-chamber of a pump.

‘‘By means of the adjusting screws, which are

at the lower end of the guide-bars, they may be set

inward or outward relatively to the central mandrel

or spindle, so that the spinning tools or wheels will

be moved downward in lines parallel with the mand-

rel or spindle for producing straight work, or in

lines more or less inclined relatively to the central

pee ee

axis for producing a downward taper or downward-

ly-flaring work’? (II-331).

This second Seymour patent shows quasi mechanical

apparatus including the same associated mechanical ele-

ments as the early Seymour patent, in which all the

movements of the spinning roll with reference to the

work, are mechanically controlled, with means for man-

ually adjusting the pressure and movement of the spin-

ning rolls to and from the work.

The patentee also states that ‘The cylindric shell D

may be operated upon by my improved machine either in

a hot or cold state’’ (11-333): and this statement seems

to imply a displacement of the metal by the action of the

spinning rolls, to produce a stretching or elongation of

the sheet in a direction normal to that in which it is

circumferentially contracted by the advancing operation

of the spinning rolls.

The Dewey patent, No. 438,407 of October 14. 1890,

for Improvements in Apparatus for Forming or Shaping

Sheet Metal Electrically, illustrates and describes a

similar association of the same mechanical elements for

operating upon a sheet metal disk by passing a heating

current of electricity through it, while a spinning roll co-

operates with a revolving mold to form the disk into a

cup shaped ring. The patentee describes the method em-

ployed and the mode of operation of his apparatus, as

follows:

‘‘My invention relates to certain apparatus for

use in my process or method of forming sheet-metal

articles which requires the employment of heat to

soften or anneal the metal, and the application of

pressure to gradually conform the sheet to the sur-

face of a suitable die or mold.

he process depends for its success upon the

malleability of the metal; and it is the purpose of my

invention to keep the metal annealed or in a softened

condition during a greater part of if not the entire

or complete formation of the article and to de-

crease the number of molds as well as the number of

pressings usually required in forming or shaping

the article, and also to save time and handling.

ee 7

“The pressure-instrument Dis held upon the

lathe-rest d as a fulerum, and while the disk A and

mold C are revolved said instrument is applied to the

disk near the center, which is rapidly bent or

swaged, so as to fit close against the curved face of

the mold. The instrument D may be held and

moved by any suitable means, but preferably in the

hand and by the handle d’. A gentle pressure is

‘aused to bear on one point, thus producing a slight

depression; but as the sheet is spinning at high ve-

locity the depression at once forms a circle, and so by

continuing the pressure of the instrument and grad-

ually moving the same the sheet is molded into any

form accordingly.

“Various forms of pressure instruments or

burnishers may be used, the one shown in Fig. 3 be-

ing provided with a roll d” to decrease the friction

between the bearing points.’’

‘It will be also apparent that the sheet of metal

may be by this method maintained in a_ heated,

softened, or annealed condition during the entire

formation of the article, if desired, and that with

suitable current-regulating devices in cireuit the

sheet may be kept at any temperature desired with-

out danger of burning or heating the sheet metal too

much’’ (I1-321,2).

Dewey Patent No. 438,407 (II-320).

CO eee

PME Le Nene ae OA

No functional difference is seen hetween the radial

displacement, stretching or elongation of the malleable

metal, which is necessarily required to cause the circwn-

ferential contraction thereof in the formation of a cup

shaped article from a flat disk; as compared with the like

radial displacement, stretching or elongation of the rub-

ber saturated fabric which may be required to cause a

circumferential contraction thereof in the formation of

a tubular tire from a eylindrie strip of fabric.

This conclusion is supported by the testimony otf

plaintiff’s expert, Arthur S. Brown, as follows:

‘‘In metal spinning, the metal is made to flow.

That is to say, the metal is displaced from one po-

sition to another. The metal cannot be changed

greatly in shape except at several stages between

which the metal has to be heated, or else the metal

has to be maintained hot’’ (1-494).

In the same sense, it is believed that as far as the

function of a method or a machine is concerned, the

rubberized fabric is made to flow, and is displaced from

one position to another; not by a heating thereof as may

be required for a metal, but by the inherent elastic or

ductile character of the material.

The Moore patent, No. 518,112 of April 10, 1894, for

Improvements in Machines for Making Shoes or Covers

for Pneumatic Tires, illustrates and describes an applica:

tion or adaptation of substantially the same method and

LE gy

€s

oh -

! .~he¢

Moore Patent No. 518,112 (II-274).

MEM Bess

mode of mechanical operations in the manufacture of

bievele tires; in which a ring shell is employed as a form

for the fabric, the same being mounted upon an expand-

ing spider for stretching the fabric, and is provided with

power driven mechanism for rotating the core-shell at a

high rate of speed, while disk-like rollers mounted on

levers are manually applied to the fabric for the purpose

of smoothing and stretching the same into proper po-

sition and condition.

Moore Patent No. 518,112 (II-276).

A mere inspection of the drawings of this patent is

sufficient to show that as far as function or mode of

operation is concerned, the machine or apparatus is a

mere adaptation of the method and mode of operation

disclosed in the prior metal-spinning patents.

The Jeffery patent, No. 607,245 of July 12, 1898, for

Improvements in Pneumatic Tires and Processes of

Making the Same, shows a further adaptation of metal

spinning methods in the manufacture of pnuematie tires;

Lrg. 3.

Fig 4

-”’ B Zs”

Jeffery Patent No. 602,245, (II-286).

and it is particularly interesting, because it illustrates

in the same drawing a manual and also a quasi mechani-

cal use of a disk-shaped roller, which is elsewhere

throughout the record referred to as a **spinning wheel,”

and sometimes as a ‘‘stitching wheel.’

The Seiberling and Stevens patent, No. 762,561 of

June 14, 1904, for a Machine for Making Outer Casings

for Double Tube Tires, illustrates and describes

associated mechanisms for building automobile tires of

exactly the same construction which is said to be the

purpose of the State patent.

The pertinent parts of the Seiberling and Stevens

machine are well set forth in Figs. 1, 4 and 6 of the draw-

ings, and nothing need be added to the concise descrip-

tion which is contained in the opinion by Circuit Judge

Denison of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit,

in deciding Firestone vs. Seiberling (Pet. for Cert. pp.

24,25), as follows:

‘**The Seiberling and Stevens patent seems to

diselose a machine for doing this work automatically,

instead of manually. The machine comprised (so

far as now necessary to mention): First, a main

power driven shatt which would indirectly engage

and drive the core and with such selective connee-

tions that the core could be revolved at low speed or

at high speed, or entirely released, as desired;

second, a reel carrying the rubber-impregnated fab-

rie strip; third, a tension roller retarding the reel,

and thus causing the central tread strip of the fab-

rie to be given a continuing stretch after the free end

is attached to the core; fourth, a presure roller or

cylinder concaved on its exterior to match the shape

of the tread of the core, whereby the tread portion

of the strip was pressed upon and attached to the

core as the latter revolved; fifth, an arm carrying

‘7

69 Ad 70

26 5158

67. LSE 4\ Pad

: / 9S

62 18 S

Soman tt ‘ : 84 S85

— ’ 7.

= MF 524A 2

B Wl rn Se

40_ Mf 7264S 1S KY 87

W435 a Al ANS HW

$5 OIET ANNE \\

i fi ] " 8 . |

Lat 4 :

59-1) | Oe, FT} |

ot 38 i\ \ yi iH 7 ¥

J— . . > 4 o i

947] [mera CATTID RY

99 ; » %

9 A “. “a ‘

972 WN :

me 10 101 l

56 106 00 .

07 6 F *

54.

! 3

ite

: | Ee

70} 5 7

“

7 Gt yi

3S @ SF 66

aaa

ir 56)

Seiberling and Stevens Patent No. 762,561 (II-257).

at its end, a laterally spring-pressed finger—‘the

jigger finger,’ and which arm was intended to be

reciprocated rapidly, radially of the core, in such

a way that the finger traveled in and out radially,

pressing against the side of the core as the latter

revolved, and which pressure finger therefore trav-

eled a saw-tooth course between the edge of the

stretched, central, tread portion of the fabric and

its final outer edge, and corresponded in function

to the human finger pressing the fabric down against

the core and stretching it into shape; sixth, a fur-

ther arm containing a further pressure wheel to

be applied along the edge of the attached fabric,

after it was attached, to press it into a crease, con-

stituting ‘stitching.’ ’’

The smoothing fingers 85 shown in Figs. 1 and 6

of this patent correspond in form and function to the

reciprocating paddles referred to by witnesses in de-

seribing the so-called ‘‘stitching method’’ employed in

building a tire by hand; and the sharp-edged rollers 91

shown in Figs. 1 and 4 of this patent correspond in form

at least with the spinning or stitching rolls referred to

by the same witnesses in describing the ‘‘spinning

method’’ employed in building a tire by hand.

Under these circumstances, and in view of the early

recognition in the Dewey patent of 1890 of the avail-

ability of either a pressure paddle or a spinning wheel

for shaping a sheet upon a rapidly rotating form, and

the common practice of so doing in the building of tires

by hand; no invention would seem to be required to pro-

vide the smoothing paddles 85 with the juxtaposed stitch-

ing rolls 91 in the Seiberling and Stevens patent, and

in radially reciprocating the same slowly enough to spin

a fabric upon the core, if it were desired to do so.

—

“ty

Fle .

Seiberling and Stevens Patent No. 762,561 (II-257).

The Vincent patent, No. 794,473 of J uly 11, 1905, il-

lustrates and describes a machine for building tires, in

many respects substantially the same as the machine of

the State patent, including a power driven ring core, a

stock roll or fabric supply and means for tensioning the

fabric.

Although the machine of the Vincent patent may be

intended more particularly for carrying out the so-

called ‘‘single stretch”’ method, the testimony of Mell

shows that when even an 18 or 20 per cent stretch or

elongation is given to the fabric, it never lies on the core

in correct position, and it is always necessary to place

the fabric in its proper position by other means.

The machine of the Vincent patent was certainly a

commercially successful machine, as evidenced by the

report made in 1907 from Milan, Italy, by the plaintiff

to his brother, that a Vincent machine was being there

used to make: four tires per hour, by a manufacturer

who said that “Jt works perfectly putting the fabric on

at uniform tension”’ (1-402) ; and as also shown by the

testimony of Harry K. Raymond, of Akron, Ohio, Second

Vice-President, in charge of production of The B. F.

Goodrich Company, where a Vincent machine was used

in about December, 1906, for a period of some eight

months or possibly a year, ‘*/n making between seven-

teen or eighteen thousand” tires, which were ‘‘commer-

cial’? and were ‘‘sold,’’ and upon which royalties were

paid (1-187, §).

Upon cross examination, Mr. Raymond testified as

follows:

“XQ. 16. Did the machine operate satisfactori-

ly with you?

“A. Tt did.

“XQ.17. Entirely satisfactorily?

‘A. At that period of time, yes.

Vincent Patent No. 794,473.

‘XQ. 18. You mean the tire standard was not,

perhaps quite so exacting then as later on?

“A. Not at all that. I mean that machine was

at that period a perfectly satisfactory machine. It

was developed to produce more tires, at a less cost.

“XQ. 19. Were the tires of as good quality?

‘*A. They were.

“XQ. 20. Did you have any difficulty in the cam

mechanism that operated the hammers, that you re-

eall?

‘A. No material difficulty, no.

“XQ. 21. But there were some imperfections in

that action, were there not?

“A. T shouldn’t say so. I don’t think there

was anything mechanical that eouldn’t have been

sared for.

“XQ. 22. Were the original stretching devices

for the fabric satistactory in their mode of opera-

tion, as you recall it?

“A. 7 think so. They made perfectly good

tires’’ (1-188, 9).

Raymond testified further that the percentage of

circumferential stretch secured in the original Vincent

machine was approximately about eighteen per cent, and

proceeded to say that—

‘‘T think, Mr. Rogers, that the amount of stretch

and the shape of the fabric on the Vincent machine

conformed very closely to what is considered good

practice to-day’? (1-190).

Thus the Vincent machine, following the disclosure

of the Seiberling and Stevens patent, left very little if

any room in the rapidly narrowing field, to be occupied

by subsequent inventors, having in mind the crowded

state of the art shown by the prior practice and prior

patents which have been reviewed.

MATHERN BELGIAN PATENT NO. 194,731.

September 20, 1906 (II-217).

The Mathern Belgian patent was granted during

the year before State began his experiments, and seems

to show everything which State has claimed, or could

claim, in his subsequent patent No. 941,962 (1-1).

Copies of eighteen photographs, comprising Defen-

dant’s Exhibit D (1-162), illustrating a machine made

and used under the Mathern German patent No. 206,-

197, applied for December 20, 1906 (11-305), modified to

include the rounded roller tools shown in Fig. 6 of the

Belgian patent, together with reproductions of the

drawings in the Mathern Belgian and German patents,

are appended as a part of this brief, and reference is

made to them in the following discussion.

Plaintiff’s expert witness, Arthur S. Browne, has

very fully and correctly described the machine of the

Belgian patent, in setting forth the characteristies of

the State machine for another purpose, as follows:

‘There is a rotating power driven ring-core.

There is a low speed mechanism, a high speed mech-

anism, and speed changing mechanism, so that the

ring-core may be power driven both at low speed

and at high speed.

“There is a stock roll for the unformed flat

sheet fabrie and tension mechanism between the

stock roll and the ring-core, so that the sheet fabric

‘van be uniformly stretched cireumferentially when

applied to the ring-core.

“There are two forming- or spinning-rolls

which simultaneously act upon the opposite sides

of the ring-core and against the hinges of the sides

of the fabrie where the unattached portions join

the attached portions.

‘*Each forming or spinning roll is carried by

a swinging arm and is forcibly pressed against the

fabric upon the core. (Mathern) gets this pressure

by (manual) means * * *, and while the State pat-

ent shows a spring for this purpose, it specifically

says that (manual means) may be used.

‘“‘The spinning rolls are mounted upon a slid.

ing carriage. This sliding carriage is mechanically

mounted and accurately guided upon the machine so

as to move radially with respect to the ring-core.

‘‘The sliding carriage is fed by a serew so that

it is gradually and progressively advanced as the

forming- or spinning-rolls press against the rapid-

ly rotating ring-core.

‘‘Kach spinning-roll has a rounded working

edge.

‘*Kach spinning-roll is set at a receding angle

with respect to the ring-core’’ (I-44, 5).

It is true that this analysis was made to apply to

the Defendant’s machine, but as it so clearly applies to

the Mathern machine without any modification what-

ever, excepting only the substitution of the name ‘ Math-

ern’? for ‘‘Defendant,’’ and of ‘manual means”? for “a

weight,’’ both of which are within the specified scope of

the State patent; no argument seems necessary to ar-

rive at the conclusion that the Mathern patent complete-

ly anticipates the machine of the State patent, and this

fact is necessarily implied from the disclaimer which

has been filed in the Patent Office (1-9).

Plaintiff’s disclaimer is obviously intended to avoid

the effect of the existence of the prior Belgian patent,

by pointing out certain things which it is said eannot be

done by the use of the machine illustrated and described

therein; in the face of the fact that few, if any, of these

things are described or claimed in the State patent.

grec.

While it may not be fatal to the validity of the State

patent, that it does not disclose or describe the manner

in which it may be operated as outlined in the disclaimer,

if the same is inherent in the machine which is set forth

in the patent; it is no more fatal to the anticipating ef-

fect of the Belgian patent, that it does not disclose or de-

scribe the manner in which it may likewise be operated,

if the same is inherent in the machine which is set forth

in the patent. Obviously both patents must be inter-

preted by the same rule.

Plaintiff’s Assumed Theory.

The disclaimer is based primarily upon an assumed

theory that there is something inherent in the “* Slight

uniform puckering of the fabric strips at their edges,’’

normally produced by the Mathern machine, which

is said to prevent the same from heing applied to the

sides of the core in the manner which is alleged to be

inherent, although not set forth, in the State patent; and

it is interesting, if not important, to consider what the

record shows on this subject.

Plaintiff has sought to Support this theory by the

use in briefs below of an arbitrary or fanciful sketch,

purporting to show the result of the slight crimping of

the edges of the fabric by Mathern’s beveled gears 36;

and by the testimony of its expert Browne, as follows:

“The described combined effect of the rolls 26

and gears 36 is to pre-form the fabric by stretching

it at its middle and gathering it at its sides.

“This pre-forming of the fabric would faeili-

tate the subsequent sticking of it to the core, since it

would be partly conformed to the shape of the core,

and this is what Mathern specifies in his seeond

claim as the purpose of this pre-formation’’ (1-462),

Aside from the slight crimping of the edges of the

fabric, there is nothing materially different in the ‘pre-

forming’’ of the fabric, by Mathern’s iongitudinal

stretching operation, compared with State’s correspond-

ing stretching operation. In the Mathern machine, the

fabric is passed over a spherical roller which stretches the

median line of the fabrie without stretching the lateral

portions thereof, just the same as the median line ot

the fabrie is stretched directly by the core of the State

machine, without holding the lateral portions thereof to

the stretch previously given thereto, which permits

their elasticity to contract them to normal length at

the sides of the core. This condition is clearly shown in

Photographs Mathern Machine No. 6, infra, as com-

pared with Fig. 2 of the State patent, on the opposite

page.

In both eases the result is exactly the same when

the fabric is initially applied to the core, the median

portion of the fabric hugs around the tread portion of

the core while the lateral portions of the fabric hang

free of the sides of the core. This fact is conelusively

shown by a mere inspection of the Plaintiff’s Exhibit No.

35, Photographs State Machine (No. 1) (11-189), and

of Defendant’s Exhibit D—Photographs Mathern Ma-

chine (No. 7) infra. The latter picture shows that there

is quite as much ‘‘bagging’’ of skirts of the fabric at the

side of the tire in the Mathern machine as there is in

the State machine, and that the slight crimping of the

edges does not appreciably affect the position of the free

fabric at the sides of the core.

There is no foundation whatever in the record for

the sketch used in plaintiff’s briefs, showing a tubular

formation of the fabric with its crimped edges uniformly

curved inward so as to initially embrace the sides of the

core: and the impertinence of this sketch is evidenced by

the same Mathern picture, No. 7, which shows that the

skirts of the core hang indifferently, and mostly swing

outward away from the core, and do not embrace it as

implied in the sketch referred to. Thus the crimping of

the edges of the fabric is not a pre-formation thereof

which materially affects the application of the fabric

to the sides of the core.

}

)

} 8 27/fi29 =

; 5

3é/

25 36 .

fk Fig. 2.

<Oy 30 41

40 115

1D 116

157

: 38 140)30 149

a. 131

V en 124

\ yy" O 129

SS 10027417 127328

State Patent No. 941,962.

Plaintiff further seeks to support the assumed thie-

ory, by urging that even though the lateral wings of the

fabric are not formed and cemented to the sides of the

core by the initial stretching application thereto, they

are so applied and cemented to the core by action of

Mathern’s reciprocating rolls 30,—thus leaving no work

for Mathern’s spinning rolls, Fig. 6, to do, but to remove

or eliminate the puckers or wrinkles after the fabric has

been applied and cemented to the core, thereby prevent-

ing an operation on the skirts of the fabric when they

are free.

Plaintiff’s expert Browne is very careful not to

testify directly that the reciprocating rolls 50 operate

all the way down to the base of the core, but does so

indirectly in describing the operation of the rollers, Fig.

6, as follows:

“The function of the rolls 30, therefore, is to

stick the fabrie to the straight or convex sides oj

the core * that is to say, against the sides of the core

whatever the shape may be, thereby cementing the

sides of the fabric to the sides of the core’’ (1-463).

“Thus, as the rolls 30 reciprocate back and

forth in a direetion which is radial with respect to

the core, they bear on the sides of the fabric, press-

ing it against the core, and as a result the fabric is

cemented to the core on its sides’’ (1-463,4).

“The result of these actions up to this point

is to lay and apply the fabric onto the core with

wrinkles, folds, or puckers in it. Puckers, creases,

or wrinkles have been intentionally made at the sides

of the fabrie by the conieal gears 36 and wrinkles

may exist in other portions of the fabric—inevitably

so, if the spherical pre-forming rolls 26 shown in

the drawings are employed”’ (1-464, 5).

‘« Accordingly, Mathern then proceeds to remove

the puckers or wrinkles from the fabric by the em-

* Emphasis Brown's.

ployment of the tool shown in Fig. 6, or by employ-

ing two of such tools at the same time at opposite

sides of the core’’ (1-465).

‘‘Thus the action of these rollers of the tools

of Fig. 6, when two are employed simultaneously,

is over the entire surface of the fabric, from the top

of the core down to its base. Hence, wherever any

puckers or wrinkles are located in the fabric, it is

the intent of Mathern to remove them all by this

comprehensive action of these tools’’ (1-465).

‘*The sole office of the rollers of Fig. 6 which is

mentioned in the Mathern specification is the re-

moval or elimination of puckers or wrinkles which

are present in the fabric after it has been applied

and cemented to the core’’ (1-466).

The conclusion thus arrived at in the foregoing

discussion, is not justified either by the plain language

of the Mathern patent, or by an actual operation of the

machine of the patent which is illustrated and described

in the record.

In the first place, the Mathern patents describe the

operation of the rollers 30 as follows:

‘Each of these rods carries at its extremity a

roller 30, which advances and retracts on the core

so as to stick to its straight or convex sides the fa-

brie which has just been placed there’’ (11-220).

The juxtaposition of the words ‘‘straight’? and

“convex’’ is sufficient to show that both words are in-

tended to refer to the side portions of the core as dis-

tinguished from the tread or base portions thereof: espe-

cially in view of the fact that the art at that time in-

cluded cores which were either flattened or rounded on

each side,

This fact is impressively shown by the disclosure

of various figures in the Seiberling and Stevens patent

No. 762,561 (11-257), in which both kinds of cores are

shown, and particularly in Fig. 5 of that patent, which

illustrates a core with flat or **stra:ght’’ sides as follows:

Seiberling and Stevens Patent No. 762,561 (II-257).

This illustration is also very impressive in showing

the use of rolls 52 in cooperation with the disk flanges

18 on a tread roller 17, for pressing the fabric against

the straight sides of the core, which is obviously the sole

purpose for which the rollers 30 are to be employed in

the machine of the Belgian patent; and which is the

manner in which they are actually employed in the ma-

chine of Mathern’s contemporaneous German patent, as

well shown in Defendant’s Exhibt D—Photographs

Mathern Machine (Nos. 8 and 9) infra, with reference

» 9?

to a core having round or ‘‘convex’’ sides.

This conelusion is confirmed by the language em-

ployed by Mathern in describing the operation of his

Fig. 6 spinning rolls, as follows:

4h)

‘Then the machine is set in operation and the

roller is caused to descend progressively on the side

ot the core and all the way down to its base’’ (II-

220).

There can be no mistake as to the meaning of this

language, which occurs in the same pa ‘agraph of the

Belgian patent in which the operation of the roller 30

is described by language which specifies only a particu-

lar portion of the sides, to-wit ; the ‘‘straight or convex’’

portions thereof; so that Mathern’s meaning is clearly

conveyed by the use of language which cannot be mis-

taken.

And finally, it would be impossible to use a spin-

ning roll to remove the wrinkles or puckers which have

been produced by the crimping rolls in its edges, after

they have been applied and cemented to the base sides of

the core; or even to remove wrinkles which may exist in

other portions of the fabrie on the straight or convex

sides of the core in the manner suggested by plaintiff’s

expert; for the reason that the testimony of practical

men experienced in the art is that such wrinkles can only

be removed by lifting the fabric from adhesion to the

tire and smoothing it thereupon by the reciprocating use

of a stitcher or a spade, as follows:

‘*The only time that a saw-tooth movement of a

stitcher or a spading tool need be used is when a

wrinkle develops in the application by the spinning

roll in the hand spinning which necessitates liftina

the fabric from the core and straightening out the

wrinkle’? (Dunean [-199),

“So far as IT remember, wrinkles or uneven

places obtained in stitching a tire were smoothed

out by paddle or stiteher’’ (Roe T-170).

These considerations seem to dispose of the econten-

tion that the fabrie is applied and cemented to the hase

sides of the core, either by the initial stretching opera-

tion, or by the action of the rolls 30 in the machine of

the Mathern Belgian patent.

The same conclusion is clearly confirmed by further

language of the Belgian patent, when read in the light

of the meaning which is given to the terms employed

therein, by the experienced tire builders whose testimony

has been quoted at length in this brief.

Immediately following the description of the roller

30 and the roller Fig. 6 mechanisms, and the manner in

which they operate, Mathern goes on to says that—

‘“After the fabric has been thus laid down by

these devices, the same operation is repeated in

laying down the several fabric strips on which the

beads are applied; then after the beads have been

put on, the other fabric strips are laid down before

covering and enclosing the beads. The laying down

ot these other fabric strips is accomplished in the

same manner by means of the rollers 30 and the

roller tools like that shown in Fig. 6’’ (11-221).

The expressions ‘‘laid down’’ and ‘daying down”

are believed to describe the operation of applying and

cementing the fabrie to the core; that being the meaning

of the same or similar expression used by each and all

the experienced witnesses who have described the hand

method of spinning tires.

In speaking of the operation of the hand spinning of

the tires. Duncan said he ‘* Would gradually move it down

* * * until the fabrie was completely applied’? (1-194);

Mell said that the fabric ‘‘ Was rolled down”’ (1-153), and

that it was ‘* Worked down’? (1-155); Koplin said they

would ‘Stitch it down’’ (1-93); Drach said it was ** Spun

down’’ (1-102); Derry said they would ‘‘Spin it down”

(1-108): Heller said he would ‘‘Spin it right down”

(1-116); Stark speaks of ‘‘Running the ply down” (I-

126): Green said he would ‘*Stitch it down’’ (1-137):

Gregg said he ‘Stitched it down’’ (1-148) ; Roe said it

was common practice ‘*To stitch them down’’ (1-171);

Bittaker said *‘The fabric was stitched down’’ (1-175);

Curtis said they ‘* Rolled it down’’ (1-294) ; Walch speaks

of getting ‘‘ Both sides down’’ (1-292); and finally, plain-

tiff’s practical witness Mackey said they ‘‘Rolled the

fabric down on the side of the core by a stitcher held in

the hand of the operator’’ (1-116).

Thus every single witness who has told about build-

ing tires from personal experience, has used the word

’

‘“down’’ to describe the operation of applying and

cementing the fabric to the side of the core by a stitching

wheel or a spinning roll; and it is fair to presume that

Mathern well knew the common meaning of the word

down among men familiar with the particular art, and

that when he speaks of laying down the fabric by means

of rollers 30, and the roller tools like Fig. 6, he meant

the operation of applying and cementing the fabric to the

core, as distinguished from a mere removal of wrinkles.

This conclusion is not affected by the language em-

ployed by Mathern in particularly pointing out the prin-

ciple of his invention in his description and claim with

respect to the operation of the spinning rolls, 2s follows:

‘*The control systems of the several mechanisms

may differ from those described above, but the in-

vention comprises the application to the manufacture

of tires * * * (c) of the principle of the roller de-

scending progressively on the core during rapid

rotation and producing a progressive removal from

the fabric of the puckers by eliminating the puckers

from the point of their origin, this being performed

in a single descending movement’? (IT-221).

‘4. In a machine for mechanically manufac-

turing casings for pneumatic tires, as claimed in

claim 1, a tool carrier having rollers and arranged

to move downward automatically and progressively,

dependent on the rotation of the core, in order to

progressively efface the puckers of the successive

strips of fabric and to apply these strips on the

beads, substantially as described and shown in the

annexed drawing’’ (II-224).

In both of these statements, Mathern was no doubt

endeavoring to particularly point out the essential char-

acteristics of his invention, and distinguish the same

from the things that were old and well known in the

art, which was no doubt required by the Belgian law as

it is by our Statute; and he was well advised in not in-

cluding broadly in his principle and his claim, the opera-

tion of ‘‘laying down’’ the fabrie on the core by means

of his roller tools like Fig. 6, for he doubtless knew that

this principle and operation was well known and im com-

mon use in the art of spinning tires by hand, before he

devised his machine, and that no one was entitled to a

claim for the same. For this reason Mathern could only

claim the use of spinning rolls ‘‘to progressively efface

the puckers.”’

This understanding is confirmed, rather than _ re-

futed, by the fact that in stating his claim for the rollers

30, Mathern specified the use of the same as being *‘to

stick the fabric on the sides of the core’’ (1-224); which

he was fully justified in doing for the reason that, as far

as this record shows, he was the first inventor in this

art to use rollers having a reciprocating movement per-

pendicular to the axis of the core, while rolling radially

thereon in the manner of the Belgian machine.

The nearest mechanical approach to this idea is

embodied in the stitching fingers 85 shown in the Seiber-

ling and Stevens patent supra; and although it may not

have involved invention to provide these fingers with the

old hand stitching disk rolls traveling along the core,

if there was any invention involved in providing

the same fingers with cylindric rolls traveling across the

sides of the core, Mathern was entitled to include and

claim it as his invention.

Thus the result is naturally reached that the rollers

of Fig. 6 in the Belgian patent are intended by Mathern

for *‘laying down’? the fabrie on the base sides of the

core, from a position in which the wings of the fabric

stand free of the core; as well illustrated in Photographs

Mathern Machine, No. 9, infra, which shows the fabric

on the core after it has been acted upon by the rollers 30,

in position to be acted upon by the rollers of Fig. 6: and

that in conjunction with the old spinning operation of

“laying down” the fabric, Mathern’s spinning rolls per-

formed the additional function of ** progressively e ffac-

ing the puckers.”’

Operation of Mathern’s Spinning Rolls.

It does not seem necessary to diseuss or determine

whether Mathern’s spinning rolls were intended to act

on any portion of the tread or top surface of the fabrie,

as suggested by plaintiff’s expert Browne (1-465): for

the reason that if they do so operate, they merely per-

form a function which is attributed to the spinning rolls

of the State patent, which are said by State in his patent

to operate, as follows:

‘*At first the spinning-rolls are positioned to act

upon the edges of the tread portion of the tire-shoe”’

(1-21).

At any event the Belgian patent only specified that

each Fig. 6 roll ‘‘7s caused to descend progressively on

the side of the core and all the way down to its base”’

(11-220).

Plaintiff’s expert Browne, however, seems to think

that the spinning rolls of the Belgian patent are not me-

chanically fed and controlled in the same manner as they

are fed or controlled in the State patent, as follows:

‘It is hence evident that by reason of its open

hook embracing a pin 35, the tool of Fig. 6 is neither

automatically nor positively fed downward.

‘*For example, if the workman who has hold of

the tool handle keeps the tool in a definite vertical

position, the tool carrier slide will feed downwardly

without imparting any feed at all to the tool and

would ultimately feed down far enough to remove

entirely the lateral pin 35 from the open hook of the

tool. The workman himself must perform the act of

feeding the tool downward. The only function of the

slide 17 and its pin 35 with respect to the feed of the

tool is that it prevents the workman feeding the tool

down too fast. The tool cannot slip in the hands of

the workman and go down too far. But the progres-

sive and gradual radial advance of the tool, while

limited by the tool carrier, is due solely to the con-

scious act of the workman. The workman, therefore,

must feed the tool ahead at the same time that he is

pressing its roller against the fabrie, and is pre-

venting the tool from being tilted in the plane of the

core’s rotation’’ (1-470, 1).

In giving this opinion Browne seems to have over-

looked the testimony given by State himself, to the effect

that the action of a spinning core is to draw a@ spinning

tool applied to the sides thereof inward toward the center

of the core, as follows:

**(. 129. And how did this system of advancing

the slide ‘M’ work out in practice?

“A. The tendency was to lead in quickly, and

at times was hard to hold.

**(). 130. Why was it hard to hold?

‘*A. From the tendeney to lead—or for the

rolls to draw vt in.

**Q.131. You mean that the contact of the rolls

with the fabric on the core tended to pull the slide

in?

m... 206.

**Q.132. What was the reason for this tendency?

‘“‘A. In starting it on, it seemed to take q screw

movement in the rolls, not ad rancing evenly on the

side of the fabrie: and, after they had started that

way, they would continue.

**Q. 133. You mean that it was difficult for the

operator to advance the slide toward the core regu-

larly?

we Yes,

*““Q. 134. Because the contact of the rolls with

the side of the core tended to pull the slide in?

““A. It did.

“*Q. 185. And, therefore, it was not easy to get

a uniform advance of the rolls; is that correct?

“‘A. Yes.

*Q. 136. I next hand you, ‘Sketch 8.’ and ask

you to point out the difference therein over ‘Sketch

“A. Instead of operating the slide with a lever,

it was operated with a screw and hand-wheel. In

the hand-wheel you were able to change the position

of the handle into different holes, so the operator

could be able to change the speed of advancement.

**Q. 137. Now, did this device, particularly re-

ferring to the serew-feed of the slide, overcome the

difficulty you have testified to in connection with

‘Sketch 7°,’ as to which you stated that there was

a tendeney, because of the engagement of the rolls

with the core, to draw the slide in by itself?

**A. It did.

*Q. 188. Just how and why was that tendency

overcome in connection with the serew-feed?

“A. The screw would not allow it to do it, held

it back.

*Q. 139. In other words, then, the serew had

two functions: it enabled the operator to advance

and retract the slide at will, and, moreover, resisted

the tendency of the rolls to pull the slide in; is that

correct?

“A. Yes.’’ (1-318, 19, 20)

Mathern evidently understood the tendency which

State claims to have discovered, and depended upon the

same to draw the rolls inward during the spinning oper-

ation: and as State testified that the tendency was so

strong that it was hard to hold manually, it is evident

that Browne was not well advised in testifying that the

gradual radial advance of the spinning roll is due solely

to the conscious act of the workman. As a matter of fact

the spinning rolls are automatically drawn in ward, when

they are pressed against the side of the core.

Thus the ‘‘‘open hook’’ connection of the Mathern

spinning rolls with their support is sufficient to cause

the rolls to operate in exactly the same manner that the

State spinning rolls are said to aet, because the inward

drawing action resulting from their pressing contact with

the core, tends to draw them inward just as fast as the

screw feed will permit; the screw feed being employed

by State as well as by Mathern, not to move the rolls

inward while they are in action, but to restrain too rapid

an inward movement thereof.

Therefore, if any invention was involved in provid-

ing a serew-fed sliding support for spinning rolls ina

tire building machine, Mathern anticipated State in doing

So.

Amount of Pressure Required.

Plaintiff’s proofs do not sustain the position that

the Belgian machine is ineffective for the work of prop-

erly building a tire, because its mechanically mounted

and radially fed spinning rolls are not provided with

springs to press them toward the core.

On the contrary, the record shows that a spring

pressure is only useful for the purpose of constantly

holding the spinning rolls against the side of the core,

and to relieve the workman of a portion of the energy

required in giving the full and varying pressure required,

which is always supplied and controlled by the hands of

the workman, in machine work as well as in hand work.

State candidly admits that tires can be well made

if the stitcher arm is pressed in only by the strength

of the operator and no spring used, as follows: ** You

could have pressed it in hard enough to have made a tire

without the use of

x *

that would have been all right *

aspring’’ (1-376); and tells why springs are not in them-

selves sufficient for the purpose, as follows:

‘The springs naturally—all the springs that

were used naturally weren’t as active as directly on

the rolls when the core got narrower than when they

were on the ball of the core, when they would add a

little pressure by the hand to it’” (1-377).

**Along the tongue of the core, where it was

thin, they could help out the pressing on by spreading

(the stitecher arms) with your hands’’ (1-32).

And plaintiff’s expert Browne admits that spring

pressure is not uniform, as follows:

““XQ.78. You have referred to the spinning

rolls 147 as being pressed inwardly by springs or by

weights. If the said rolls are pressed inwardly by

springs is it a faet that the pressure exerted by the

said springs, and hence by the rolls, upon the fabrie,

becomes less as the said rolls progress from the

point of extreme width of the core toward the inner

periphery of the core?

ve oR {See

This testimony means that spring pressure becomes

weaker as the spinning wheels approach the base of the

core where the greatest pressure must be applied to give

the increased radial stretch required at the bead edge

of the fabric; and that there is a like lack of uniformity

in the pressure of springs which there may be in a purely

manual pressure. In both cases, the required amount of

pressure must be supplied or controlled by the strength

and will of the operator; and many of the experienced

tire builders have testified that their unaided strength is

fully adequate for the work required.

Duncan points out that—

‘The amount of side pressure need be only suf-

ficient to apply the fabrie smoothly. The adhesion

is obtained during the molding operation’? (1-203),

Mell explains the molding operation as follows:

‘The tire was then cured in the usual manner,

that all full molded tires are cured in’’ (1-154).

Koplin testified that the pressure in Firestone

machines—‘‘/sn’t any more than a man can use * * *

about 30 or 40 Ibs.’’ (1-198, 9) and Stark says ‘‘T always

got enough on there to get them down where they should

be’? (1-128).

Walch testified that ‘‘The hand made tire was con-

sidered just as good as far as du rability goes as a ma-

chine made tire’’ (1-288) ; and explained that the amount

of pressure was not so important as it was to hold the

stitcher steady as follows:

‘Well, it was not a great pressure—just enough

to stick the fabric to the cement; there was some on

the inside, just to touch the fabric, very little pres-

sure * * * not to amount to anything; you had to

hold the stitcher steady; that is the way you held it,

the pressure, you didn’t have to put on much pres-

sure at all’’ (1-290).

It being shown that hand pressure is fully adequate

in the use of spinning rolls for building tires, the Math-

ern patent discloses a machine which is entirely effective

for the purpose intended; and if it is desirable to use

springs to supplement manual control or pressure, the

early Seymour patent No. 80,836, supra, com pletely

anticipates State in the use of springs for the identical

purpose,

Action of Centrifugal Force.

The machine of the Belgian patent is provided with

clutches and gears for rotating the core alternately at

high and low speeds. In describing the operation of the

spinning rollers shown in Fig. 6, the patent specifies: The

principle of the roller descending progressively on the

core during rapid rotation’? (11-221); and in claim 4 of

the patent is specified **.4 tool carrier having rollers and

arranged to move downward automatically and progres-

sively, dependent on the rotation of the core’’ (11-224).

Furthermore Mathern’s claim 4 refers back to his

claim 1, which reads as follows:

‘*In a machine for mechanically manufacturing

‘asings for pneumatic tires, characterized by the

fact that several gears and clutches impart to an

annular core various rotations appropriate to the

phases of the manufacture and enable the employ-

ment of special devices constituting part of the ma-

chine, substantially as deseribed and shown in the

annexed drawing’? (11-223),

Thus the Belgian machine is provided with mechan-

ical means for operating its core at a slow speed for

stretching the middle or tread portion of a fabric, and

for then operating it at a fast speed for spinning the

fabrie down upon the sides of the core, in exactly the

same manner which is portrayed in the State patent.

Plaintiff’s theory of the Belgian patent, seems to in.

clude a further assumption that the presence of slight

uniform puckers in the fabrie strips along their edges,

serves to prevent these portions of the fabric from be-

ing thrown out by the rotation of the core in the same

manner the corresponding portions of the fabric are

thrown out by the rotation of a core in the hand method

of building tires, and are said to be thrown out by the

State machine.

This assumption is quite as gratuitous as the idea

that the crimped edge portions of the fabric are intended

to be and are attached to the corresponding sides of the

core, either by the initial application of the stretched

fabric or by the action of the reciprocating rolls 30; and

no reason is seen why the unattached skirts will not be

thrown outward by centrifugal foree during the rapid

operation of the Mathern core, just exactly the same as

they are thrown out by a corresponding operation of the

State core.

t is quite clear that such will be the action of the

fabric when the spinning rolls are riding upon a_por-

tion thereof which has not been crimped, and it is only

necessary to consider the action of the spinning rolls

when they reach the crimped edge zone of the fabric.

The specification of the Belgian patent is not silent

on this subject, for it expressly deseribes the principle of

this particular operation of the machine as being—

“‘The roller descending progressively on the

eore during rapid rotation and producing a_prog-

ressing removal from the fabric of the puckers by

eliminating the puckers from the point of their ori-

gin”” (1-221).

This language can only mean one thing, and that is

that Mathern’s spinning rolls act upon the inner ends of

the slight uniform puckers to progressively eliminate

them, just the same as State’s spinning rolls operate on

the inner ends of larger irregular puckers, to progres-

sively eliminate the same.

The action of the spinning rolls produces a pressure

line on the fabric in the path of its travel, along which

line all the puckers in the fabric have been entirely elimi-

nated and as the roller gradually progresses inward

along its spiral course, this line continues to mark the

inner ends of the puckers, which is the “*point of their

origin’ referred to in the Mathern patent.

Furthermore, as the fabric is always laid smoothly

along this line, it constitutes a hinge line upon which the

outer unattached portion of the fabric may be thrown

out by centrifugal force as readily as though it were not

crimped with a slight uniform puckering.

An inspection of Defendant’s Exhibit D—Pictures

Mathern Machine, especially of pictures Nos. 9, 10, 11

and 12 infra, serves to show that such is and must be

the operation of the machine of the Belgian patent;

which is confirmed by pictures Nos. 12 and 17, which

show the fabric to be smoothly applied, without any

wrinkles, all the way down to the cutting line of the

core.

In considering these pictures, it must. be remem-

bered that they are taken while the machine is not in mo-

tion, just the same as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 35—Photo-

graphs State Machines, are taken while that machine is

not in motion; so that in none of the pictures is the un-

attached skirt of the fabrie shown to be thrown out-

ward by centrifugal force as would be shown if motion

pictures were taken of the respective machines.

Thus the machine of the Belgian patent can operate,

and actually does operate in exactly the same manner as

the machine of the State patent; and if the identical

operation produces a sufficient radial extension of the

fabrie to carry out the double stretch method of building

tires in the one machine, it must necessarily produce at

least as much radial stretch in the other machine.

That the Mathern machine of the Belgian patent,

Defendant’s Exhibit II (1-242), shown in Defendant’s

Exhibit D—Photographs Mathern Machine, infra, does

so operate, is evidenced by the testimony of Johu IW,

Thomas that the machine was actually operated at the

Firestone plant for making tires which were actually used

on automobiles with satisfactory results (1-160); and by

the testimony of Guy L. Evans that the machine was

not only then used at the Firestone plant, but that he

was one of the men who operated that machine before

the judges of the Cireuit Court of Appeals, at Cincin-

nati (1-165),

As a matter of fact, it would seem that the crimped

zone in the edges of the fabrie produced by the Mathern

machine, might serve to increase the friction caused by

the engagement of the outthrown skirts around the edges

of the spinning wheels of the fabric, over that caused

by the plainer skirts in the State machine; and to this

extent, the operation of the Mathern machine would give

a better result than that of the State machine, although

the better result would be inclusive of the lesser result

in its anticipating effect.

It may be noted that the Belgian patent says noth-

ing about the action of centrifugal force and the

radial stretch which are attributed by way of disclaimer,

to be inherent in the State patent machine; and if this

omission were a matter of consequence, it is just as true

of the State patent, wherein the only reference to cen-

trifugal force is that it ‘‘tends to throw the fab-

ric out at right angles from the core-plane and

unless the roller recedes in the manner shown, the fab-

ric will become entangled with it’’ (I1-20)—no reference

whatever being made to a resulting radial stretch.

This fact has caused Circuit Judge Denison to point

out that ‘‘Centrifugal force is not mentioned, in State’s

specification, save as creating an obstacle to be avoid-

ed’’; and it is quite as important to point out that the

same obstacle was met and overcome in spinning down

fabrie by hand, not only by a 45° receding inclination of

the stitching roll, but by the use of a roll having a larger

diameter. Testimony to this effect was given by Dun-

ean, as follows:

“The fabric stood out at approximately right

angles to the plane of the core. The roller was ap-

plied to the fabric on the core at approximately an

angle of forty-five degrees to the plane of the core’’

(1-195).

‘*A small wheel would have a tendency to let the

skirt of fabric catch the supporting yoke and jerk it

out of position. * * * The first wheels were about

an inch in diameter but were almost immediately

increased from two to two and a half inches. * * *

The smaller ones were abandoned’? (1-201).

It is more important, however, to point out that the

state of the art shown by the prior practice testimony,

gives the best explanation of the failure of both Mathern

and State to deseribe the action of centrifugal foree and

the use of a radial stretch in the skirts of the fabrie,

when they are ‘‘/aid down’’ on the sides of the core; is

that this action and this stretch was so well known by the

hand method workers, that no description of either the

action or the stretch was necessary to enable men skilled

in the art to properly and successfully operate the re-

spective machines.

The same thing is true of Mathern’s failure to men-

tion the numerical rate of the rapid rotation of the core

required for the spinning process, which was too well

known to require any description thereof; and State’s

guess on this subject, ‘‘say at two hundred and seven

times a minute’’ (11-16), only confirms his testimony

that in 1908 he could not tell within 50 revolutions the

most desirable high speed for the core (1-375), and that

he did not determine the high speed himself—and did

not know who did (1-376).

State’s guess was at least one hundred revolutions

per minute and some 100% more than the speed of Good-

year commercial machines, in which the centrifugal force

is utilized to good advantage, to-wit: ‘‘somewhere be-

tween 80 r, p. m. and 120 r. p. m.’’ as shown by the testi-

mony of plaintiff’s expert Browne, as follows:

‘XQ. 95. Then is it your understanding of the

language I have quoted from the disclaimer that the

unapplied fabric is thrown out to a position sub-

stantially at right angles to the plane of the core by

centrifugal force?

“A. 7 think this would be the case if the cen-

trifugal force was being used to the best advantage.

My observation is that the skirts are thrown out at

substantially right angles to the plane of the core

when a 34x 4 core is rotating at about 80 r. p. m.,

but at that speed the skirts are not smooth, but still

present waves or corrugations. These waves or

corrugations disappear, however, at a higher speed,

such as that employed in the Goodyear commercial

machines and the centrifugal force is then utilized

to good advantage.

**XQ. 96. You mean the thrown-out portions of

the fabric will be smooth at a speed of about 120 to

150 r. p.m. Is that correct?

‘‘A. They are smooth at that speed and become

so somewhere between 80 r. p. m. and 120 r. p. m.’’

(1-68).

Browne’s testimony that the “‘skirts are thrown out

at substantially right angles to the plane of the core

** * when rotating at about 80 r. p. m.,”’ brings State’s

so-called *‘high speed’’ down to or within the prior hand-

spinning practice, and shows that State’s alleged dis-

covery was merely one of degree, and not of kind. At

any event, State’s testimony shows that if any discovery

was made along this line, he did not make it and does not

know who did. Furthermore the point is not sufficiently

defined in the State patent to sustain a claim, either for

a method or for a mode of operation.

These final considerations further confirm the con-

clusion reached above, that the mechanical means set

forth in the Mathern Belgian patent are not only adapted

but are intended to carry out the prior-practice hand-

method of building tires, and to accomplish the same re

sult by the identical mode of operation which is said to

be inherent in the machine of the State patent; and that,

therefore, the Belgian patent in itself, completely antic-

ipates the State patent, not only with respect to the

machine disclosed therein, but with respect to the method

as well as the mode of operation said to be inherent

therein.

RADIAL STRETCH THEORY.

Although the deciding judges in the Cireuit Court of

Appeals for the Third Cireuit, seem to concede the prior

practice of the double-stretch and roll-spinning meth-

NE Re A wien Soe thee al oo

od of building tires by hand, their decision appears to be

founded on the idea that the operation of the State ma-

chine is something wholly different from the original

hand process; and it is difficult to reconcile the seem-

ingly divergent statements on this point in the opinion

by Cireuit Judge Buffington, as follows:

‘*‘Leaving aside the tires made by a single

stretch of fibrous material, and which were forced

into place on the side of the shoe by what are known

2 as ‘‘jigger fingers,’’ and confining ourselves to

% shoes in which the material is stretched at different

| parts of the shoe in two directions at right angles

to each other, and to a process of cementing or plas- |

tering them in place by a spinning roll, we note the |

fact that tires embodying these two features of |

double stretch and roll-spinning fastening, were be-

fore the patent to State here in question, hand-

made’ (11-404).

‘*Far from being separated, isolated zone proc-

esses, there is a gradual and uniform, and indeed an

unbroken spiral sequence caused by the rapid rota-

tion of the core and the consequent exercise of the

centrifugal force on the covering material, by which

it is automatically gradually stretched radially and

by the joint action of such centrifugal, radial stretch,

and the spinning rolls, the square of the median

zone progressively shades into the radial diamond

shaped interstices of the bead or inner zone of the

shoe. In a way we have anticipated what State’s

machine really is, by thus describing its results.

But such statement should be initially made, for the

crux and dominating functional feature of State's

machine is the use upon the fabrie of a centrifugal

foree caused by rapid rotation, @ process which is

wholly different from the original hand process.C -4%

It is very difficult to see wherein there is anything

“wholly different’’ in the ‘Suse upon the fabric of a cen-

trifugal force caused by rapid rotation,’’ from the

‘‘double stretch roll-spinning fastening’? which was used

in the prior practice; unless it be the rate of such rapid

rotation, which is obviously a matter of degree and not

of kind, and was inherent in the Mathern machine, or

perchance the so-called automatic graduation of the ra-

dial stretch, which was likewise inherent in the Mathern

machine.

Upon a showing less complete as to the prior prac-

tice, but with machines in actual operation before them,

which does not appear to be the case in the Third Cir-

cuit, the judges in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the

Sixth Cireuit reached a diametrically opposite conelu-

sion, in the opinion by Circuit Judge Denison, as fol-

lows:

- Plaintiff really presents his case on the theory

that State discovered a new method of making tire

casings or a new set of functions to be performed by

associated mechanism’’ (Pet. for Cert. p. 35).

‘“We prefer to point out also that State had

nothing broadly new either in his method or in his

selected tools’’ (Lbid. 35).

‘The evidence that this identical spinning op-

eration was performed upon tire casings by hand

tools before State’s invention is sufficiently satisty-

ing to meet all the requirements of the situation”’

(bid. : 36).

‘The Belgian tool in its radial progress was

bound to stretch and reshape the fabric in substan-

tially the same way that is done by State. Putting

all these things together , State cannot be considered

as the inventor of the method’’ (Ibid. 38, 9).

‘We are told that the centrifugal foree dis-

closed by State’s operation caused the unattached

skirts of the fabric to fly out at right-angles to the

plane of the core, and that the effeet of the spin-

ning tool slowly advancing against this skirt was to

Weinert tee ieee ee suena 9 - es

o 5 eee

J St EDIE Cy hcg er TE

produce a ‘hinging and folding action’ which was

novel and important. We are not impressed by this

claim. These words do not seem very appropriate-

ly descriptive, but the action which takes place not

only pertains to a method or piocess rather than to

any particular mechanism, but it was more or less

inherent in the rapid revolution of the core effected

by older means, and in the use of any spinning,

stitching or creasing rollers’? (Jbid. 42, 43).

‘*Perfectly successful spinning performed in

court, upon a slowly revolving core, demonstrates

that the outflying skirts are not essential. To make

centrifugal force an effective basis of validity in the

State patent would be to give a monopoly of the

spinning process or of rapid core rotation; and each

was old’”’ (Ibid. 43).

The fact that slowly-revolving spinning-operations

performed in court, demonstrates that the outflying skirts

are not essential, and the further fact that the prior spin-

ning practice produced hand made tires quite as good as

machine made tires, upon cores rotating at very little if

any less speed than is said to be effective in the State ma-

chine; naturally suggests that there must be something

wrong with the theory that centrifugal force is the con-

trolling factor in effecting this radial stretch in the un-

attached skirts of the fabric.

Obviously, the facts do not fit the theory, for the

reason that when the alleged action of centrifugal force

is most needed, there is less of it available for effective

action. The maximum width of the unattached fabric to

be acted upon extends outward from the neutral zone at

the side of the core, and as the spinning operations grad-

ually applies the skirt to the core, there is a correspond-

ing gradual decrease in the width of the unattached fab-

rie to be acted upon by centrifugal force, until it is re-

fron

the ¢

the 1

may

with

duced to a minimum, or vanishes to nothing at the base

of the core,

The requirements of the ‘adial stretch operation,

however, demand that the force applied shall increase

from a minimum at the neutral zone on the side of the

tire, to a maximum at the base of the tire; and if the

action of centrifugal force is depended upon for this pur-

pose, it gradually vanishes to nothing when it is most

needed.

The beneficial function of centrifugal foree would

rather seem to be the action of throwing the fabric out-

ward into a eylindrie form so as to cireumferentially

stretch out the large bagev folds which would otherwise

hang from the line of attachment; thus leaving the spin-

ning rolls free for the work of radially stretching the fab-

rie as it is gradually applied to the core, by the frictional

contact of the edge of the roll hy its direet pressure on

the fabrie as it is positively backed by the core.

There is support for this view in the testimony of

plaintiff’s expert Browne, as follows:

‘*My observation is that the skirts are thrown

out at substantially right angles to the plane of the

core * * * at about 80 r. p. m., but at that point the

skirts are not smooth, but still present waves or cor-

rugations. These waves or corrugations disappear,

however, at a higher speed, such as that employed in

the Goodyear commercial machine and the centrifu-

gal force is then utilized to good advantage.”’

Thus the *‘ good advantage’’ which is said to result

irom the action of centrifugal foree would appear to be

‘he elimination of the haggy condition of the fabric: and

he relatively slight pressure which the outthrown fabric

nay exert at the edge of the spinning roll, as compared

vith the positive resistance of the core to the pressure of

WRIA Rinks no Ans dex DS. arena Dai \

the spinning roll, would not seem to materially affect the

radial stretching action thereof.

At any event, the frictional contact would be limited

to the extreme peripheral edge of the spinning roll, be-

cause the eylindrical skirt could not be circwmferen-

tially stretched enough to cause it to fold or wrap around

the edge of the roll in the manner suggested on behalf of

the plaintiff.

There is further support for this view in the testi-

mony of Derry, as follows:

XQ. 48. Why did you want to give it so high a

velocity?

A. To make your number a good deal easier,

to get the speed to pull the fabric down. Run it on

low speed, wouldn’t flare out; on high speed, it would

flare out.

XQ. 49. Why did you want it to flare out?

A. So the fabrie wouldn't wrinkle.

According to this witness, the principal purpose of

throwing the fabric out was to avoid wrinkles, and it is

obvious that when the unattached skirt is once thrown

straight out, by the speed employed in the hand practice,

it assumes the position of an endless band attached at

one side to the core, which would prevent any further ra-

dial movement outward without a circumferential stretch-

ing of the fabric. In other words, when the fabric skirts

are thrown out straight, as in the hand practice, the bene-

fit of any increased action of centrifugal foree would

seem to be negligible.

The baggy waves or corrugations in the unattached

fabric clearly appears in Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 35—Pho-

tographs State Machine, Nos. 1 and 2 (11-189, 91), and

in Defendant’s Exhibit D—Photograph Mathern Ma-

chine, Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 16, infra; and the

latter pictures show that the slightly crimped zone which

may be produced in the edge of the fabrie by the Math-

ern machine, does not materially affeet the baggy con-

dition of the unattached skirts, shown for a plain edge in

victure No, 18.

The conelusion is therefore compelling that, after

giving full effect to the disclaimer of record. there is

nothing left of the State patent save a series of directions

for the use of the admittedly old mechanical combina-

tions; which directions merely describe a manner or mode

of operating the State machine, to perform the same

functions tor shaping, spinning and radially stretching

fabries, by the same method or mode of operation, which

the deciding judges in the Third Cireuit conceded to be

old in their preliminary finding of facts, quoted above.

STATE PATENT No. 941,962.

The operation of machines said to embody the in-

vention of the State patent, was exhibited to defendant’s

expert, Frank N. Waterman, at the Goodyear factory by

plaintiff’s Counsel, and his expert Mr. Ray; and the op-

eration of these machines is well deseribed by Mr. Water-

man, and serves to confirm many of the conclusions which

have heen reached on other grounds, as follows:

“The high speed was 120 R. P. M. instead of

207? (1-231).

‘**The machines shown me were not all alike, but

the arrangement in each case was such that the

spring played little or no part in the operation, the

pressure being as I judged practically wholly ap-

plied by the operator leaning heavily against this

handle while performing the spinning operation. In

other words, the operator appeared to be making

fully as much physical effort in this spinning oper-

ation as in the eases where I have seen the spinning

operation performed by hand’? (1-282).

“The spinning rolls appeared relatively larger

than is indicated in the State patent and they acted

under the heavy pressure applied by the operator

against the core as in ordinary hand spinning and

* * * did manifestly compress or pinch the fabric

between the roll edges and the core precisely as in

hand spinning; and this was evidenced when the

spinning was completed by the pressure line left on

the fabric which showed the path of travel of the

spinning roll, * * * Such a line is left by the hand

spinning roll as used in the hand spinning as I saw

it in use many years ago’’ (1-282, 3).

‘The work which I saw was not as the patent

says (page 7, line 49) ‘better than they can be made

by hand,’ but was extremely poor, much worse than

I remember having seen it done by hand and indeed

the faults of the machine had to be remedied by hand

both while the core was attached to the machine and

after it had been removed therefrom.

‘‘In practically every layer of fabric applied

very large and very bad wrinkles were formed and

it was necessary to stop the machine and lift up the

fabric and smooth it down by hand with a spade,

after having applied cement underneath in some in-

stances’’ (1-233).

It goes without saying that the demonstration given

to defendant’s expert by plaintiff’s counsel and plain-

tiff’s expert, was undoubtedly carried out under the most

favorable circumstances and conditions to present the

best operation of State’s machine, and the foregoing

testimony shows that these machines are subject to sub-

stantially the same difficulties which are said to be inher-

ent in the operation of spinning tires by hand.

It might be assumed a priori, that a machine made

tire would not be as perfectly formed or wear so well

as a hand-made tire, because of the intimate attention

to all the details which must be given by the manual

worker, just the same as watches, shoes, and all kinds of

wearing apparel are always known to be better made by

hand than by machine; and the record here shows that

hand-made tires are just as good, if not better, than ma-

chine made, tires even though they are made by a ma-

chine under the State patent.

It only remains to repeat that the method carried

out by the State machine is anticipated in every material

respect by the prior hand practice and also by the op-

eration of the Mathern Belgian machine, and that the

machine of the State patent as well as its mode of opera-

tion, are both anticipated by the machine and mode of

operation of the Mathern Belgian patent; and that in

each case the anticipation goes to each and every limita-

tion and every condition which has been imposed upon

the claims of the State patent by the disclaimer of rec-

ord.

METHOD AND MODE OF OPERATION.

The undisputed facts here present are believed to

lead so naturally to the foregoing conclusions, that the

same need only be stated to readily come within the es-

tablished principles of patent law, which will naturally

suggest themselves to the Court without the need of

citing the authorities herein.

If it should be urged, however, that the foregoing

conclusions are not correct, they are believed to come

fully within the reasoning of Robinson, so well set forth

in the note to Section 172 of his Treatise on the Law of

Patents, as follows:

‘Where a process consists entirely in the oper-

ation of a machine or other instrument, it ap-

proaches so nearly to the function of the instrument

employed that several decisions have been rendered

identifying it therewith, and hence denying its pat-

entability.

‘*But the process and the function are, after all,

two entirely separate entities, both in intellectual

and physical contemplation; the former being capa-

ble of conception apart from any object acted on,

the latter not so.

‘‘The difficulty is another form of the old con-

fusion between the end and the means, and is to be

avoided by defining sharply the end to be accom-

plished, and determinnig whether the machine or

the operation performed by it is the actual means.

‘‘For if the operation performed by the ma-

chine is new in reference to the object upon which it

is employed, a new process has been invented; and

this is no less true if the machine or instrument em-

ployed is new than if it were old, or if the process

can be performed in no other known way than by

this particular machine.

‘‘While, on the other hand, if the operation ts

known in reference to the object, the invention of a

new machine for performing it does not make a new

process, but only a new instrument for applying it.”’

‘‘Whether or not a new machine is the redue-

tion to practice of a new process, or is a new in-

strument for the performance of an old process, is,

therefore, to be determined by the state of the art

at the date of the invention.

‘Tf it is the former, the process is patentable,

though the machine be new. If the latter, only

the machine can be allowed the protection of the

law.”’

The application of these principles to the present

case is so obvious, as to render argument superfluous.

Respectfully submitted,

Harry FReEasE,

Amicus Curiae.

Canton, Ohio,

December 1, 1923.

DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT D—PHOTOGRAPHS

MATHERN MACHINE

No. 1. A perspective view of the machines, looking

downward at the forward side of the machine from its

right-hand corner.

SORE He How

DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT D—PHOTOGRAPHS

MATHERN MACHINE

No. 2. A perspective view of the rear side of the

machine, looking at its left-hand corner, and showing

some of the finished tire casings built on the machine.

he ~ wil >

i « pe ’

, " ‘

eins

vg a > ; . fe

aN be & athe

‘ ‘ re TR) 2

DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT D—PHOTOGRAPHS

MATHERN MACHINE

No. 3. A perspective view of the rear side of the

machine from its right-hand corner.

DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT D--PHOTOGRAPHS

MATHFRN MACHINE

No. 4. A perspective view of the conical gears and

spherical and oval rollers.

DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT D—PHOTOGRAPHS

MATHFERN MACHINE

No. 5. A perspective view of the box or casing and

reciprocating slide, carrying the rollers 30 of the Bel gian

patent, the cover of casing being removed to expose the

parts beneath it.

a a Na ee Se

DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT D—PHOTOGRAPHS

MATHERN MACHINE

No. 6. A detail perspective view of the conical

gears and the rollers, showing the initial application of

the first strip of fabric to the core.

DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT D—PHOTOGRAPHS

MATHERN MACHINE

No. 7. A similar view showing the layer of fabric |

completely wound around the core with its ends spliced

ready for the next succeeding operation.

7. . Q\T 9

DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT D—PHOTOGRAPHS

MATHERN MACHINE

No. 8. A detail side elevation showing the action

of the rollers 30 on the fabric on the core. the portion of

the fabric below the rollers having been acted upon by

them and the portion of the fabric above them not hav-

ing reached them in the rotation of the core.

DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT D—PHOTOGRAPHS

MATHERN MACHINE

No. 9. A perspective detail showing the co-opera

tion of the rollers 30 with the core, this view being taken

from a point showing the inner part of the core. In this

view the core has made a complete rotation past the

rollers 30, so that they have acted upon the entire cir

cumference of the fabric.

Swmeteniy tak 4.

DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT D—PHOTOGRAPHS

MATHERN MACHINE

No. 10. View showing the operation of the spinning

rolls at or near the beginning of their action upon the

sides of the fabric.

DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT D—PHOTOGRAPHS

MATHERN MACHINE

No. 11. A later stage of the same operation.

athe 3 BOTERER ELE LG ee re OS RESORT te

SO ES I TENG ITS AMIGA TR ABE

DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT D—PHOTOGRAPHS

MATHERN MACHINE

No. 12. View showing the spinning rolls at the com-

pletion of their operation.

DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT D—PHOTOGRAPHS

MATHERN MACHINE

No. 13. A side elevation of the core showing the

first layer of fabric thereon after the completion of the

operation of the spinning rolls.

DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT D—PHOTOGRAPHS

MATHERN MACHINE

No. 14. A similar view showing the second layer of

fabric stretched around the core with its ends spliced

ready for the next succeeding operation.

DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT D—PHOTOGRAPHS

MATHERN MACHINE

No. 15. A similar view showing the second layer of |

fabric after it had been acted upon by the rollers 30.

DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT D—PHOTOGRAPHS

MATHERN MACHINE

No. 16. A side elevation showing a later stage of

operation, after the beads have been applied over the

first two layers of fabric and the third layer has been

wound upon the core and its ends spliced together for

the next succeeding operation.

DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT D—PHOTOGRAPHS

MATHERN MACHINE

No. 17. A similar view showing the third layer of

fabric after it has been acted upon by the rollers 30 and

the spinning rolls and spun down over the beads.

re.

DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT D—PHOTOGRAPHS

MATHERN MACHINE

No. 18. A side elevation showing a strip of fabric

wound upon the core without having been acted upon by

the conical gears, the upper gears having been removed.

w= MATHERN. PATENT

D fiet

Llevaton

Fie. 4. (C

EFlevation|T

vue en pian

- z ss TI

F76. 3.

Prof7d

Coupe par AB.

Fie8

E || Le = |

| AX Gi

A I-S\ EF

esta

oo4

fe 2.

Pilar

|-16 17

f ¥

° fe) OL3s

: 35 P

: 40 ‘

NJ 72

S aaa... ZZ --

--2

SSSSSSSSSSS SNES ARG 38

Fl 29

FIG. 6

5 | 43

= 20° ua

42 re)

40 45S

4 et. Lay

FIG? . ShnittE-F’

A 42

TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,

\ OCTOBER TERM, MEE 1923

{ *oughis6

\. THE JOHN E. THROPP'S SONS COMPANY, PETITIONER,

yi v8.

FRANK A. SEIBERLING.

> ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT counr ;

OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. : s as

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED JANUARY 2, 1923. _

CERTIORARI AND RETURN FILED MARCH 20, 1923.

(29,824)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

OCTOBER TERM, 1922.

No. 774.

THE JOHN E. THROPP’S SONS COMPANY, PETITIONER,

vs.

FRANK A. SEIBERLING.

+ ia nae

Ste aes

ie *

“Ese Se

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT

OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT.

VOLUME II.

INDEX.

Page.

Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1—State patent No. O41, DGD. wc rrcccccvccvers 1

No. 2—Thropp and De Laski patent No, 1,119,826. 25

No. 4—Diagram of original flat fabric before

SHAPING co cece eeeeeceeeeeeeeeeeenrere oY

No. 5—Diagram of fabric shaped to core......- 61

No. 7—Diagram of saw-tooth path of hand tool.. 63

No. S—Sketches of experimental work, numbers

1 to 15, imclusive....... eee ewer eeeees 65

No. 10—Diagram of carcass and wheel eee 99

No. 11—Photograph of manual circumferential

Stretching ...ccececccscceccscsessvers 101

No. 12—Diagram of State’s spiral path........-- 1038

No. 13—Stevens patent No, 1,258,105.......-.565 105

No. 14—Copy of journal entitled “Moniteur

errr rrr Terre ete ott 137

No. 16—Plaintiff’s forms of license agreement

since January, 1919...... eee eee eens 143

Jupp & DerweEILer (INc.), PRINTERS, Wasuineton, D. C., Aprit 4, 1923.

NEN Sells ana. Heel,

Baserer’s

ica a ee eT re te eT ee eee eee ALR AL aba b ANS, VSR IPE DOR MEET Ae cerwaaie

Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 17—Vuleanizing charts of Mackey and Shaw

No, 20—Sketch of Ray holding device...........

No. 21—Sketch of Ray bursting apparatus......

No, 22——-Extracts from “American Machinist Gear

BIO TN CERN GR Wh AR ARRN RON CAA NAAR VOR

No, 25--Extracts from “The Theory of Machines”,

No. 24-—Extracts from “Pure Mechanism”’........

No. 26—Series of articles by FL A. Halsey on

worm and spiral gearing in the

“AMCTICAN BEACHKINISt”... ci vcascnennccs

No. 85-—Vhotographls of State machines..........

Defendant's Exhibit A—Browne's sketch of | a ne <

I—Mathern Belgian patent No. 194,781 and

CPAMSIALION 2.cccers COaCARCENRAR AROS cas

G—RBritish patent No, 25,588 to State........

J—Vincent patent No. TO4ATS. 0... ccc cece ccs

K--Seiberling and Stevens patent No, 762,561,

I-—Moore patent No. 518.112. .....ccuccvccess

M—Jeffery patent No. GOT, 245... ccc. cccenes

N—Bayne and Subers patent No. S47,041.....

O—Translaition of Mathern German patent No,

MOREL A DNATSCAKANGANARERA EAA SRAM A ORAM

P—Translation of Hernandez French patent

CRO, GORE SRSRAWRERAS KDA CERN Vin UNS

Q—Dewey patent No. 488,407.......ccccccces

R—Early Seymour patent No. SAS86.........

S—Later Seymour patent No. 876167........

U--Extracts from State's file-wrapper........

Z—Ray sketch of Mathern Belgian patent,

SHOWine Pals BOse ssc caccceacce eee Cae

RIURNOD, SROMUNO BD v6.54 54. anak S 0eec axa cca ch CON VUSANCRNAS OLENA DES

MRA MOO. nN AAA AS We RAR CORA SS seueus Saw Wht RAIA SRN ares Ane ‘

Assignment of errors...........00. Peewee LERLALE LEE Cr cane

PeteteOn Hot Redick cis civicns ‘ it See SCART ORRNALS MACE her

Order allowing appeal and fixing bond. SR UASNARES Seu RASA R AAS Keen

RRUAMON MINE SERCO gina 54 NAN KAAA CARR CALA RR RO RORRS KEL ca ey eee

Proceedings in U.S. circuit court of PPOGISs 60540064 cacnnknd +4 DA wO SS

Argument and submission... ... Gb GEES ESSRRE KOASAS ieee SERNA CA CAR OS

Dissenting opinion, BOAT My WORENERA SES SIERRA RS CAN KRS CRRA cha cannes ‘

MD EN AA xen et MARE UANA SRK RE eM SNR A Re RANAENS SA REA SA CECAMEN 00 04. Occ

Petition for rehearing................ PUASAGS ARWEARANESA SHARR ERS SA cA

Affidavit of William H. Kavanaugh.............. CPLA SAPANAN RN EAR RAS

George B. Pegram............. RNCRA CANE A CEA RNS KOs 60

Robert M. Anderson........ RESSAANAS CS ECERGWERAS EN EAR ORAM

Memorandum in opposition to petition for seheasion, CEANCAGA REM ASA COR

Order denying petition for rehearing... ...........0cccc cece beeen

RO SONI ng eh ube ehutn es sueectaanaccuececsce ERANKA RR AA OEK

Writ of certiorari! and return...............00.5.

A eV RRND MME dns OR NE SE

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS.

;

ots

lata ieee ae ee

a RIALTO ck alae Wane : eT

Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1—Patent in Suit.

(State No. 941.962. )

W. C. STATE.

PNEUMATIC TIRE SHOE MANUFACTURING MACHINE.

941,96 APPLICATION FILED MAB. 26, 1909. Patented Nov. 30, 1909.

6 SHEETS—8HEET 1.

Figg. i-

oo ibe i Z;

co Y

——= Cijip- - |

S tiye7 “N

wo i Gj;

oo ao : ra

ea) aii ates = Ve

oe co

wo "|e o

t oe

2 :

o ae 2 a

be \ + |

oO me Z

wo ~~

—

~ILN

ssi

+ o

al o ”

A o”

4 — a

wo A ke id 2

wo — - =

{ - wn

‘ow

oy °

9 ~

e ~N

ar) 3 a

0.698 No D a

: oO

° fe) ° ~

Sie INVENTOR

WITNESSES. i oe! =

cs : is rll C Slat

oe ee

ATTORNEY

or)

teecsetetll thie

WOMEDEAG AIRES SEES as 6 2 NS RR Sieeeoen aseieeiee

MEd Sh at.

W. C. STATE.

PNEUMATIC TIRE SHOE MANUFACTUBING MACHINE.

941,962. APPLICATION FILED MAB. 26, 1909. Patented Nov. 30, 1909.

¢ SHEETS—SEEST 2.

_ pA co

wT on

_ 7 — co

~ ( ~ ;

rs) a ¢

— =

N ' 2

o : ~ ~

rs = 3

)

oo -—-” © Ht >

on ow

pane

417

121

- a -

<= o °

? oO

(e) %s, ie +

$4 .e)

N N = ,

—i '

N L \ om

r-)

NN a

nde oO co

“ —

! ig a —— § >

I's \ ae — =

- N ——

wo oO ee

— ro] oo +

> + ——

”

Ve)

) = ° BS

o wo vT — ‘

N ~ ,

INVENTOR

WITNESSES A) .

, to lt CS lat

- fy y

” ho Mwy

ATTORNEYS

oar eS

WR Ra a eee «

6 . itis SR ES ETL TORE AAT RL DEL EI Boh maa ene

| ete et

W. C. STATE.

PNEUMATIC TIRE SHOE MANUFACTURING MACHINE.

941 968. APPLICATION FILED MAB. 26, 1909. Patented Nov. 30, 1909.

6 SHEETG—SHEET 3.

HIT ILIA ANNAN

~~ _—

ver

N co eo

@ ~

_ °

' °

—

ait o

es) OD

= °

weed °

INVENTOR

htt C Slat

we yl

ATTORNEYS

sete eS

' on EINES

— “ORL

W. C. STATE.

PNEUMATIC TIRE SHOE MANUFACTURING MACHINE.

APPLIOATION FILED MAB. 26, 1909.

941,962. Patented Nov. 30, 1909. {

6 SHEETS-—SHEET 4. :

yl,

121

INVENTOR

(hat 0 Stat

ATTORNEYS

DR ae ket Ye A ta Ot

PREM SOM oe ot

— EMRE NR SR SRC NS y's

W. C. STATE.

PNEUMATIC TIRE SHOE MANUFACTURING MACHINE,

APPLICATION FILED MAR. 26, 1909

941.962. Patented Nov. 30, 1909

6 SHEETS-SHEET 5

sLalalelatal

Wpsrdrastiihtetygyy

: Is

SoS i} 107

V2 INiZ

ANNU ANN

AXANSAARAAN

Read

so —j 102

= 06

INVENTOR

C Laz.

ey A Ki.

ATTORNEY

\ W. C. STATE.

} PNEUMATIC TIRE SHOE MANUFACTURING MACHINE.

‘ APPLIOATION FILED MAB. 26, 1909 ; -

941,962. Patented Nov. 30, 1909.

' 6 SHEETS—SHEET 6.

5 - ‘t

Fig. 12- Figr. iZa-

cc ~~ — 4

136

Fig. i2c.

Fig- 12 6.

INVENTOR

ATTORMEY

Disclaimer jn Letters Patent No. 941,962,

Sa Le ee ae US a

LO a

| DISCLAIMER. 13

| 941,962.— Min o. State, Akron, Ohio. “NEUMATIC-TinE-Suor-MANUFACTURING

MAcuing. Patent dated November 30, 1909. Disclaimer filed February 14,

1919, by the assignee, Frank: 4. Seiberling.

Enters his disclaimer as follows:

“First. In respect to each of Claims 4, 5, 6, and 7 of said patent, ] hereby dis-

claim any combination of the recited elements except when constructed and coérdi-

| Nated for sha ing and “ppiying a previously unshaped sheet-fabric strip to that part

of the recited rine-cons evond the tread Portion, and unless the ring-core js rotat-

able at fast speed by the POWer-drive, whereby the Unapplied fabric portion ts

' thrown out from the side of the ring-core by centrifugal force, and the recited

spinning-rol] support is mechanically mounted to insure its radial movement with

a gradual advance in a relation to the fast rotating ring-core, whereby the

Sspnning-roll, by such gradual advance over the ring-core and while pressed toward

it, acts gradually upon the Centrifugally thrown-out fabric to shape it to the side

of the rotating ring-core while bringing it into adhesive Contact therewit}.

“Second. In respect to each of claime i2 and 13 of said patent, I hereby disclaim

any combination of the recited elements. except for the combined operations of first

stretching the middle or tread portion of previously unshaped fabric strip onto

the recited rin “Core and thereafter shaping and a plying to the ring-core the

fabric beyond the tread portion, and unless the recited elements are so constructed

and coérdinated that before the change from slow speed to fast speed the fabric

Strip as drawn from the recited stock roll onto the Ting-core is stretched circum-

ferentially under uniform tension while ap lying it to the tread portion, and, after

the change to fast speed, the unapplied fabaee beyond the tread ortion is thrown

out from the side of the ring-core by the consequent centrifugal force, while the

recited spinning-roll, in its radial movement, acts gradually upon the centrifugally

_ thrown-out fabric, to shape it to the side of the rotating ring-core beyond the tread

portion while bringing it into adhesive contact therewith.

“Third. In respect to each of Claims 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26, of said patent, |

hereby disclaim any combination of the recited elements except when constructed

and coérdinated for shaping and applying a previously, unshaped sheet fabric strip

to that part of the recited ring-core beyond the tread portion, and unless the

power-drive for the ring-core functions by usufficjently high speed of rotation and

side of the ring-core, while the recited spinning-roll, in its radial movement and

while pressed toward the ring-core, functions by a gradual! xction upon such cen.

_ trifugally thrown-out fabric, to shape it to the side of the rotating ring-core while

a : th.

}

ic)

“Fifth. In respect to the specification of said patent, I hereby disclaim at page

1, lines 79-80, the words ‘and an important feature of my invention,’ and at page

| 1, lines 92-93, the words ‘as another feature of my invention,’””

i i iv i e ich some for ion brake is ap-

ing machine of a power-driven ring-core to which some form of tension D-

with a pair of stock-rolls from which alter- plied. T have found, also, that the fabric

nate layers of crossed fabrie may be Sup- | In passing under tension from the stock-rol]

plied to the ring-core is an important : fua- l to the ring-core forms longitudinal creases.

50 ture of my invention.

the ring-core, » radially movable smoot ing | face

or tread-forming roll firmly shapes and

These I remove by a stretching-roll supplied 105

A layer of canvas having been applied to = & pair of divergent Spirals on its sur-

Without unduly extending this prelimi.

ins : ? i y inventi I may say

Presses the canvas a unst the ring - core nary outline of my invention, y_ say

55 hae its external periphery to form the parts | that an important feature of my machine 110

WS) INVENTOR

Ow 0 SL

ATTORNEY

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE.

WILL C. STATE, OF AKRON, OHIO, ASSIGNOR TO FRANK A. SEIBERLING, OF

AKRON,

OHIO.

PNEUMATIC-TIRE-SHOE-MANUFACTURING MACHINE.

941,962.

Specification of Letters Patent.

Patented Nov. 30, 1909.

Application filed March 26,1909. Serial No. 486,043.

To all whom it may concern:

Be it known that I, Wit C. STaTE, a citi-

zen of the United States, and resident of |

Akron, Summit county, Ohio, have invented |

a new and useful Pneumatic-Tire-Shoe-Man-

ufacturing Machine, of which the following

is a specification.

My invention relates specifically to the

manufacture from flat sheets of rubber-

coated canvas of the open-bellied casings

or more briefly the open casings or tire-

shoes which are used in connection with an

inflatable inner rubber tube to constitute the

double-tube pneumatic tires now used on au-

tomobiles and the like. Heretofore such

open-bellied or open tire-shoes in so far as

they have been made direct from sheeted

fabric have been made by hand. By my in-

vention they are made by the machine which

is the subject of this application. It is the

firsi machine, known to me, which has come

into commercial use for this purpose of

building tire-shoes from superposed layers

of sheeted fabric in contradistinction to

weaving the tires from threads which are

woven or laid one after the other on the

ring-core or former.

My machine comprises a power-driven

ring-core in connection with a pair of stock-

rollers which have wound thereon st rips of

canvas skim-coated with rubber and cut on

the bias. By this means I am enabled to

supply a round of canvas on the ring-core

from one roll and then a second round of

canvas on the ring-core from the other roll.

By properly arranging the rolls with respect

to each other, the superposed layers of can-

vas on the rmg-core wil! have their threads

crossed, as is necessary in building strong

tires. The pair of stock-rollers may be

mounted one above the other, or side by side

@n a sliding or rotary table so that the stock

can readily be drawn therefrom to the

SS ring-core in alternation.

his combination in an open tire-shoe mak-

ing machine of a power-driven ring-core

with a pair of stock-rolls from which alter-

nate layers of crossed fabric may be sup-

plied to the ring-core is an important : fca-

ture of my invention. |

A layer of canvas having been applied to

the ring-core, a radially movable smoot ing

or tread-forming roll firmly shapes and

presses the canvas — the ring - core

near its external periphery to furm the parts

| of the tire which lie under its tread portion.

Thereupon a pair of spinning-rolls by radial

motion with respect to the ring core gradu-

ally press the canvas in contact with the

_ sides of the ring-core toward its internal pe-

riphery to shape the sides of the tire. These

| Spinning-rolls are preferably spring-pressed

and their outer periphery or working ede

is disk-shaped and rounded so as not to cut

the fabric. The spinning-rolls are also ra-

dially movable wit reference to the ring-

core. They have been found peculiarly effi-

cient in shaping the sides of the tire-shoe

and form an important feature of my inven-

tion. They are sharply differentiated from

the hammers or sliding finger devices here-

tofore proposed for the purpose. So, too,

the combination of the tread-forming roll

for operating upon the tread portion and

the spring-pressed spinning-rolls for sha’p-

ing the sides of the tire-shoe by radial mo-

tion with reference to the ring core forms an

effective instrumentality for com letely

shaping the tire and an important feature

of my invention.

In order to prevent the several spiral

layers of canvas, which are skim-coated or

saturated with rubber, from sticking to-

gether while on the stock-roller, I place a

strip of plain muslin or the like against the

es sgl see canvas and wind this combi-

nation upon the stock-roll. It becomes im-

portant, then, when the rubber coated can-

vas is drawn onto the ring-core from the

stock-rol] that provision be made for dis-

posing of the muslin which is unwrapped

at the same time. To this end I Seely as

another feature of my invention a take-up

roll for the muslin which is driven by fric-

tional contact against the outer surface of

the stock-roll.

It is important to secure proper tension

on the fabric as this is drawn from the stock-

roll onto the ring-core. To this end I eause

the fabric to pass over a rubber-covere’ roll

to which some form of tension brake is ap-

plied. I have found, also, that the fabric

in passing under tension from the stock-roll

to the ring-core forms longitudinal creases.

These I remove by a stretching-roll supplied

a a pair of divergent spirals on its sur-

ce.

Without unduly extending this prelimi-

nary outline of my invention, I may say

that an important feature of my machine

Si SPUAAMp EN A oN EE

100

105

110

Hit BRE Kasi

RDP OL PO BIN

SCRE SRN Ri TURES ll itn snes

2 941,962

results from the fact that I apply the canvas

to the power-driven ving-core while this is

moving quite slowly, say at six revolutions

a minute. I have discovered. however, that

it is not only possible but highly desirable

to let the smoothing- and -pinning-rolls

operate upon the ring-core while this is mov-

-ng at a much higher speed, say at two hun-

dred and seven turns a minute. By this

means the machine not only does more work

in a given time but it does better work.

I shali now describe. in detail. the ma-

chine which constitutes the best embodiment |

of my invention now known to me.

In the drawings,—Figure 1 is a plan of |

my device; Fig. 2 is a view in side elevation

leoking from the right of Fig. 1 with por-

tions in section to illustrate the internal con-

struction thereof; Fig. 3 is a sectional view

of the mechanism for supporting and ro-

tating the core; Fig. 4 is a sectional view of

the mechanism shown in Fig. 3; Fig. 5 is a

view in side elevation of the mechanism for

communicating motion to the mechanism

shown in Figs. 3 and 4; Fig. 6 is a view in

end elevation of the support and tool car-

riage on which the devices used for manip-

ulating, shaping and smoothing the fabric

while Ging placed on the core are mounted ;

Fig. 7 is a view in side elevation of a ten-

sion regulating device; Fig. 8 is a view, in

central section. of a lock employed in‘ this

device; Fig. 9 is a plan of a turret. on which

the mechanisms for manipulating the tire

are mounted, also showing.the various tools

employed in connection with this type of

device on a ring-core shaped for dumcher

tires; Fig. 10 is a sectional view of a stand-

ard and reel on which a supply of rubber-

coated fabric is mounted; Fig. 11 is a view

partly in elevation and partly in section of

a chnek on which the core is mounted while

the tie is being formed thereon; Tigs. 12,

12*, 12°, 12° are cross-sections of a ring-core

for inextensible-edge tires with the fabric in

different stages of application; Fig. 13 is a

diagram of a ring-core used alternately in

connection with a pair of stock-rolls on a

sliding support; and Fig. 14 is a diagram

of a pair of superposed stock-rolls used

alternately in connection with a ring-core.

teferring to the drawings in detail, 1 is

the base carrying a cylindrically - formed

member 3 upon which loosely turns the ro-

tary head 8 by means of a ball-bearing con-

nection 5. The base 8 is provided with a

—wries of pairs of lugs 13, the space between

cach pair forming a recess to receive a lock-

ing member 14 mounted on the side of the

cylinder 3 for arresting at predetermined

intervals the movetent of the head. Ex-

tending upwaidly from the head 8, as seen

in Fig. 1, are two varieties of standards 15,

16. The four standards are L-shaped in

cross-section und are positioned with the an-

—-_—-

gles or corners thereof inwardly toward the

axis of the evlinder 3. Mounted on hese

standards 15 and 16 are four complete sets

of rolls. and as these sets of rolls are similar.

a description of one will be sufficient. Each

set of rolls comprises a stock-roll, which con-

stitutes my sheet fabric supply a take-up

roll, an idle roll. a rubber-covered tension-

roll and a stretching-roll which will now be

deseribed. kxtending laterally from the

standard 15 is an integral arm 24, shown

best in Fig. 10, from the outer eud of which

projects a stub shaft 25 provided with a

spring eatch 26 for holding a stock-roller 27

on which the supply of rubber - saturated

fabric 2S is wound, the successive layers of

which are prevented from sticking together

by interposing between them a strip of mus-

lin or cloth 29 By releasing the catch 26,

the roller 27 may be removed from its shaft

25 and replaced by another voller on which

a fresh supply of fabric and cloth is wound

whenever the supply on the original roller

becomes exhausted.

Mounted on the shelf 17 (Figs. 1 and 2).

which extends horizontally across the upper

corner or angle of the standards 15, is an

upright hanger 18 having a laterally ex-

tending arm 19 to the free end of which is

pivotally mounted a depending yoke 20 and

having mounted on pins in its free ends

thereof a roller 23. hereinafter designated as

the take-up roller. Below the arm 24 is an

idle roller 30 (see Fig. 2) mounted between

the standards 15 and 16.

In the front or outer portion of the stand-

ards 15, 16 are bearings to receive a shaft

on which is mounted ‘a tension roller 36,

preferably having its outer face covered

with a layer of vuleanized rubber 361, which

rubber-coating I have found peculiarly effi-

cient. The tension-roll constitutes a highly

important clement since it secures the ap-

plication of the several layers of fabric to

the ring-core with a uniform degree of ten-

sion. ‘To this end there is mounted on one

end of the shaft which bears the tension-

roller 36 (Figs. 2 and 7) a disk 42 around

which is a friction band 43 having one end

anchored to a post 44 on one of the standards

and having its other end connected to a rod

45 bearing a tension measuring gage 46 and

a turnbuckle 47 at its lower end. | ‘The turn-

buckle 47 is connected with some fixed sup-

port such as the base 8 by means of a second

rod 48. If increased tension is desired on

the tension-roller 36 the turnbuckle 47. is

manipulated so as to cause a contraction of

the friction band 43 on the disk 42 to a de-

termined degree, indicated by the gage 46 so

that a predetermined amount. of resistance

will be offered to the turning or movement

of the tension-roller 36.

I have found that as the ring-core draws

the fabric under tension from the stock-

100

105

110

120

125

130

941,062 8

rolls, the fabric forms troublesome longitu-

dinal creases which must be gotten rid of.

The expedient which I have finally hit upon

for this purpose consists of a stretching-roll

5 41, here shown as mounted in a swinging

frame 40. The outer surface of the stretch-

ing-roller 41 is provided with two spirally

arranged sets of grooves both commencing at

the longitudinal central line thereof and di-

verging spirally therefrom to cause it to

laterally stretch and smooth the rubber-sat-

urated fabric which is drawn partly around

it in its passage from the tension-roller, the

effect of the roller being to remove all longi-

tudinal creases and other wrinkles which

will be formed in the fabric during the re-

moval of the stock from the stock-roller on

its passage to the ring-core. The arms 40

are permitted to swing on bolts and are held

in any determined position by tightening

nuts. By passing the fabric over the ten-

sion-roll and under the stretching-roll, the

fabric is in contact with the surfaces of

these rolls for a considerable fraction of the

circum ference.

It will be understood that the stock-roll

the idle roll, the tension-roll and the stretch-

ing-roll constitute a single set of rolls, there

being, in the case shown, four sets or two

pairs of sets of rolls in all, one pair of set

of rells coéperating with one ring-core and

the other pair of set of rolls coéperating

with the other ring-core. Considering the

pair of stock-rolls which coiperate with a

single ring-core, it is understood that. the

rubber-coated canvas is applied to the two

stock-rolls at alternate Re ys which means

that when the stock rolls coéperate with the

ring-core the threads of the fabric from one

rol will be at an angle with the direction of

the threads of the fabric from the other roll.

This is brought about, in the construction

which aas just been described, by mounting

x pair of set of stock-rolls upon the rotary

head 8. But the same result could be ob-

tnined among numerous other ways by

mounting a pair of stock-rolls upon a slid-

ing head, as shown in Fig. 13, or by mount-

ing the stock-rolls one above the other, as

shown in Fig. 14 and placing the stock upon

the pairs of stock-rolls so that their threads

will come at angles to each other when sup-

plied to the ring-core.

The operation of a set of rolls is as fol-

lows: In order that the ring-core may take

hold of the fabric, the core is coated with

rubber or cement. The rubber-coated can-

vas is now unwound from the stock-roll and

carried downwardly under the idle roll 30,

and from thence upwardly around the ten-

sion-roll 36, and from thence downwardly

under and around the stretching-roll 41, and

finally onto the power-driven ring-core to

which the end of the canvas is made to ad-

here. Since the ring-core is power-driven

at a low speed, the rnbber-coated canvas will

be drawn outwardly from under the surface

of the stretching-roll as well as over the

surface of the tension-roll. In this manner

the fabric will be smoothed by the stretch-

ing-roll and the proper tension will be ap-

phed to it by the tension-roll. When one

round of canvas has been applied to the

ring-core, the length is cut off by the work-

man’s scissors frome the portion remaining

on the stock-roll. The cloth which is inter-

posed between the layers of the rubber-coated

canvas on the stoek-roll passes downwardly

around the under face of the stock-roll and

frome thence upwardly and is then rewound

on the take-up roll 23 which, being hung

between the arms of the pivoted yoke 20.

frictionally rests on the surface of the stock-

roll 27, thus receiving motion thereby, Dur-

ing the operation of withdrawing the strip

of rubber-coated canvas from the stock-roll,

the lug 14 (Fig. 2) will be inserted in the

recess between the lugs 13 to prevent. the

revolution of the head 8.

I have now to describe the source of power

for the ring-core. Mounted on the base J

is a motor 49 having a sprocket wheel 50

driving a sprocket chain 51, passing around

a sprocket wheel 52, on a shaft 53, sup-

ported by brackets 34. The shaft 53 bears.

at its ends, sprocket wheels 55 driving

sprocket chains 56, passing around the loose

members of clutches 57, which with their co-

operating tight members 59 are mounted on

shafts 58 (Figs. 3, 4, 5) and are operated 100

by clutch levers 59. Mounted on suitable

ways 6O at each end of the base 1 are hous-

ings 61. Each of these housings may be pro-

vided on its under surface with’ suitable

grooves so as to render them movable on 105

the, ways 60 and is held in a determined po

sition by means of bolts 62, the lower ends

of which engage in slots 63 formed in the

base 1, The housing 61 is hollow and is pro-

vided with an o

shaft 58 enters (Fig. 4). Within the hous-

ing are a pair of alined brackets provided

with bearings bolted to the walls of the

housing and supporting one end of the shaft

58. Extending Yo

ing 61 and supported in bearings suitably

secured to inturned flanges 69 formed inte-

gral with the body of the housing is a shaft

40 near the longitudinal center of ‘which is

splined a clutch member 71 having its two 126

lateral faces formed to engage correspond-

ing clutch members 72 and 73 mounted

loosely on said shaft 70. The clutch member

#2 is provided with a hub 74 rigidly secured

to a spiral gear 75 adapted to be driven by 125

means of a worm 76 mounted on the shaft 5S

just as the correspouding clutch member 73

has a hub 84 secured to a spiral pinion 83

driven by a worm 82 on a shaft 78. The

shaft 78 is driven from the shaft 58 by a 130

ning through which the 110

ongitudinally of the hous- 115

PLE CGE REN OKRA TOE BA AG ls

LAREN IAI UN hat

a 941,962

chain and sprocket connection and the ar-

rangement ix such that the spiral gear 83

rotates much more rapidly than the spiral

gear 75. It will thus be seen that the shafts

58 and 78 are constantly power driven and

retating. With them rotate the clutch-mem-

bers 72 and 73, which are loose on the shaft

70. By throwing the clutch member 71,

which is splined on the shaft 70. into con-

nection with either the clutch member 73

or 72. the shaft TU is made to revolve slowly

or rapidly. The movement of the clutch

tember 7L is etfected by the shifting lever 86.

Mounted on the shaft T0 outside of the

housing 61 is a gear 88 (Fig. 5) adapted to

mesh with a pinioh S$? secured to the ex-

tended end of a shaft 90. mounted in the up-

per part of the housing GL and carrying a

locking-disk 93. Codperating therewith is

a spring pressed locking pin 100 held out

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.