Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Maytag Co. v. Hurley MacHine Co.

Supreme Court brief1939

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

¥?

4 ADA

S7hy ae 4)

m) a

nh f

a a

UDO

abs

ine

Tiny

eS i So

8 wy

47 4

_ INDEX TO PETITION. |

Summary statement of matters involved out of

which conflict of decisions arisés............................

The Snyder patent was issued after protracted in-

terference proceeding i in : ae Patent Office —

_ RRTURLAMT RENO SI OT CREE nhs een

Snyder solved a long felt vat which skilled engi-

neers of the washing machine art had struggled

with without success for more than a century...

_ The Brooklyn Edison case in the Second Circuit on

the authority of which the manta cases were de-

_ The Court of Appeals failed to follow the findings.

of the District Court in the Brooklyn Edison

case both with respect to the operation of the

machines of. the Snyder patent and those of the ©

art relied upon by it to defeat the patent, and

that Snyder made his invention prior to any date

claimed for one of these........................

Eighth Circuit case involving the General Electric

Company’s machines........ picaehitiaiaiiciminicaslias

_.. The present Second Circuit cases against the Easy

Washing Machine Corporation and Hurley Ma-

chine Company, et: al.. )

The Third Cireuit declaratory judgment case

‘brought by Apex Electrical Manufacturing

Company and cal Ward & Co., Inc. toi

Questions involved ae ‘

> Reasons for granting the writ... isp

_. Prayer for relief.....:__.:....... int ical -

Ort see Oe eV tL

SORES.

: ii

INDEX TO BRIEF im SUPPORT OF PETITION.

-Surisdiction, ... SRA irae Seer 11

Statement .............. slicentbe <cininisiaiiimigauamaasaant 11,

Specification of errors.......... EROS IOE HAEL |

Argument .......... A: Ret eM isldiabalaaitcesasiiiieiuenehail en 12

I. The federal statutes and decisions of this

Court, which make it necessary for petitioner

to now file this petition in order to protect its

rights with respect to the Snyder patent owned

II. The decisions and decrees affecting the Sny- |

der patent -here in controversy that of nec-

. , essity have to be given consideration............... 15

III. The issue with respect to the validity of .

claims 23, 26 and 29 of the Snyder patent, over

which the conflict of decision arises...............:- 15

IV. The errors of the Court of Appeals with re-

spect to the validity of the Snyder claims in ~

. eontroversy and the conflict of its opinion with —

that of Judge Byers and Judge Otis are shown

by statements made in its opinion in the Brook-

lyn Edison case, which it substantially adopts

as its opinion in the instant cases....................- 18°

o (a) With reference to the Snyder invention

the errors which have oe about the

Pe | LC 19

_ (b). Claims 23, 26 and 29 in suit are each

Virmited...............;escateleeceeqeeecesnscestensscsnssbecsansseneesene 21

» (ce) Judge Byers oe with siienans to the

| Jardine ee nT ne panacea - 23

-.. (d) Referring to the Davis patent........-...1:0. 26

”

iii

(e) The Court of Appeals in os to the

. Doughty & Davis patent... » 80°

V. In reaching its conclusions as to invention

the Court of Appeals disregarded the de-

‘cisions of this Court and the findings of J udge

Byers ‘in-the Brooklyn Edison ease; later fully

concurred in | by PRED Ti ciciccsionden ey

Statutes. :

United States Codie, Title 28, See. RT Te 12

. United States Code, Title 35, Sec. 65................. 13

United States Code, Title 35, Sec. 71........... 13

Caees Cited. | |

' Adamson v. Gilliland, 242-U. 8. 350, 353................ 9, .

_ Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U. 8. 464, 477... :

Carson v. American, 4 F.: (2d) 463, 465.007... ind 1 ;

‘Davis v. Schwartz, 155 U. 8. 631, 636... 9, 31

Diamond - Rubber Co. v. Consolidated, 220 U. S.

, 428, EM PN LE NMS et I 32

Donner v. Sheer Pharmacal Oe, 64 F. (2d) 217,

+ ated isaaeiicinaaiap ana alan ee 10

Ensten v. Simon, Ascher & Co., 282 U. S. 445........ 12

- Maytag v. Brooklyn Edison, 86 F. (2d) 625; 11

FO iciiiiscttctecde ee 7, 12, 18-20, 99-96, 30.

Morley. Machine Co. v. Lancaster, 129° U. 8. 263... 10.

Reinharts, Ine. v. nies dase breil Co., 85 F.

| Skelly Oil Co. v, Universal Products 00, 31 F.

OO. 10

‘Star Can Opener Co. v. Bunker-Clancey Mfg. Co.,

| 41 F, (2d) 142, ag TM OE MON ARM NT A ig —-

Stead Lens Co. v. Kryptok, 214 Fed. 368... Eee teal 10

Trane Co. v. Nash Engineerii Co., 25 F. (2d)

DBT, DGB. 2 ainzen sonencoeroreovennnsentsfeonensnsnsnssencaqnecsonsnvscue 9

Triplett v. Lowell, 297 U.S. 638, 642, 646...........13, 17

Union Trust Co. v. White Motes Co., 22 F. (2d)

GR, i icinincinetvstnnieniceetmmmcis er aeee 9

Unruh v. miisien 49 F. (2d) 1038 Li sessisitiebltainiaiaiod a

Opinions of the Lower Courts,

Petitioner v. Easy W ‘shing Machine Corporation and

_ Hurley Machine Co.; e¢ al., C. C.. A. 2, unreported

(R. -1458) ; in the District Court, decrees (R. 1410

- and 1433), no opinion filed. ‘

, Petitioner v. Brooklyn Edison Company, District

Court Eastern District of New York,.11. F. one. :

743, Findings of Fact, App., p.1.-._ ,

Petitioner v. Brooklyn Edison ‘Company, C. C. A. 2,

86 F. (2d) 625, on the authority of which the instant

cases were determined.

Petitioner. v.. General Electric Supply Corporation,

District Court, Western District of Missouri, unre-

ported. nad

Opinion, App.; p. 13,

Findings, App., p. 17.

Decree, App., p. 43.

Unruh v. Snyder interference, Court of Customs and:

Patent Appeals, 49 F..(2d) 1038. Findings of Fact

of Judge Byers and Judge. Otis with respect thereto,

APP» PP- 7, 24.

‘SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED Sranes

OCTOBER TER\, A. D. 1938.

ee)

THE MAYTAG COMPANY, >

‘ Petitioner,

HURLEY MACHINE COM.

PANY and ELECTRIC |:

HOUSEHOLD | a

CORPORATION, | ~ 7

Respondents. g b -nnecepesncnsenees

THE MAYTAG COMPANY, .

Petitioner,

VB. %

EASY WASHING MACHINE |

CORPORATION,

Respondent. |

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

‘ UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF AP.

PEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. -

To the Honorat * Charles E. Hughes, Chief Justice of ..

the U nited States, and the Associate Justices of the

Supreme Court of the United States.

Your petitioner respectfully shows:

oa, SUMMARY STATEMENT OF MATTER INVOLVED.

Petitioner is the owner of the Snyder patent No:’ -

1,866,779, issued July 12, 1932.* Claims 23, 26

and 29 of this patent ‘were held invalid in the ”

instant consolidated (R. . 143-4) cases: by the Court

of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and valid’:

ad Copy, and infringing devices shown at end of Brief.

Sk DF RIN BIBS gedit Stoney al wath

2 ©

in the case of petitioner against General Electric Sup-

ply Corporation in the Eighth Circuit by the Distriet

- Court for the Western District of Missouri (now pend-

ing on appeal). There is pending in the Third Circuit

a suit brought-by the Apex Electrical Manufacturing

Company and Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., against

petitioner, seeking a declaratory judgment holding

these claims.invalid and not infringed.*

The Snyder patent was issued after a protracted

interference proceeding in the Patent Office (six

years) between one Unruh and Snyder, in which not

only the question of priority but that of invention over

the prior art was vigorously contested and repeatedly

determined in favor of Snyder (Unruh v. Snyder, 49

F. (2d) 1038; Findings, Judges Byers and Otis;

App.,** pp. 7, 23, 24). : a ee ee

Snyder solved ‘‘a long and recognized want’’ which

skilled engineers- of the. washing machine art had

struggled with, without success for more than

a century. (Findings, Judges Byers and Otis,

App.,’ pp. 3, 4, 5, 22.) His invention relates to a

new (gyrator) type of ‘washing mac@ine in which the |

clothes are washed by a vigorous water action which

‘suspends, manipulates and rapidly moves them freely

about in the water, as distinguished from rubbing,

pounding and squeezing them in. the tub. with

and by mechanical means as was done in wash-

ing in all previous types.. (Findings, Judges Byers

‘and Ofis, App. pp. 3, 4, 23:) His machine

“was ‘so superior to any of the preceding types,

due to its ability to wash clothes thoroughly clean,

*In a previous suit brought by petitioner against Brooklyn Edison Com-

pany in the Eastern District of New York, claims 23, 26 and 38 of this

patent were held valid and infringed. On appeal, the. Court of Appeals

* held these claims invalid. It did. not pase on infringement. Petition for

certiorari was denied by this Court on February 15, 1937, and:a disclaimer

_ of claim 38 was filed in the Patent Office promptly thereafter. :

** Refers to separate Appendix to Petitioner’s Brief.

ane p

Ue tenes ioe an cross

without injury, and in from one-third to one-half

. the time required for washing them in any of

the previous types, and its ability to wash delicate ad

fabrics which could not be washed in machines of pre- ,

vious types without mutilation, and. has become. so

popular in households throughout the ‘eountry that it

has largely supplanted all previous types of machines.

’ - Since its introduction in 1922 petitioner has sold more

than three million machines of this new gyrator type.

(Findings, Judges Byers and Otis, App., pp. 5, 25, R: .

155.) es |

During the eariy years of its introduction it was

Tidiculed and scoffed at by competing manufac-

_ turers who appropriated it only when unable to

sell their old. types-of machines, even with extensive

advertisement and vigorous ‘pushing in competition

with it. (Findings, Judges Byers and Otis, App., pp.

6, 12, 24; R. 324, 183:) Among the largest manufac- . |

turers of washing machines who thus appropriated » he =

the Snyder invention were the 1900 Company, Easy :

Washing Machine Corportion, Hurley Machine Com-

pany, Altorfer Brothers Company, and the General

Electric ‘Company. ~ 2 j

THE BROOKLYN EDISON CASE IN THE SECOND OIROUIT.

In March, of 1933, petitioner brought suit for in-

fringement of the Snyder patent, against the Brook-_

lyn Edison Company, sellers of the Easy, Hurley and

Altorfer machines, in the Eastern District of New

York, resulting in a decision by the District Court

(Judge Byers) on July 17, 1935 (11 F. Supp. 743)

holding claims 23, 26 and 38 of the Snyder patent valid _

and infringed. The defendant appealed. On No- ~

vember 30, 1936, the Court’of Appeals reversed that»

decision and without disturbing the finding of infringe-

ment held these claims invalid solely on the disclosures

‘

a ee ee

of Jardine British pated No. 18, 202 of £ ‘1691, Davis

patent No. 1,240,826, of September 25, 1917; ‘hoth of

which had been considered by the Patent Office; ‘and

Doughty & Davis patent No. 4496,305, of June 3, 1924,*

and machines.made under the latter two (86. F. (2d)

635). It refused to witness demonstrations of any of

these machines, or those of petitioner or ‘defendant,

though this wae requested by petitionér.- -. |

- The Court of Appeals failed to follow the findings

of the District Judge, who, after witnessing demonstra-

tions of each of these machines, and hearing the con-.

flicting testimony with respect to their operations, had >

held (R. 91-94, ine., App., pp. 7, 10) : : .

(a)- That the machines shown in the patents

relied upon by the Court of Appeals to invalidate « —

the Snyder claims ‘did not operate in the manner

disclosed and claimed by Snyder or like the ma-

chines of petitioner gnd defendant.

- (b) . That Snyder had made his invention eight

* months prior to any work done by Doughty and -

_ ‘Davis on the machines of-their-patent upon which

the Court of Appeals partially relied ta defeat the"

Snyder claims.

‘The evidence shows) that the 1900 iiiabianian: manu-

facturer of the Davigg§and the Doughty & Davis ma-

chines, took a license tinder the Snyder patent and has

made large quantities of the licensed machines since .

to the exclusion of all others (R. 386).**: Shortly

after the Snyder invention came upon the market, that

company completely abandoned the manufacture and .

sale of both the Davis and Doughty. & Davis machines

(R., 351-2, 368-370, 371-373, 461).

_* See Appendix, pp. 48, 52, 56. <i

** The evidence was that the Doughty and Davis machine was the result

of an earnest effort by the 1900 Company to‘ remedy Gefects | in, and over-

ceme the failure of the machine of the Davis patent.

- THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT CASE.

February 5, 1937, while the petition’ for certiorari

to- this court in the Brooklyn Edison. case~ was

pending, petitioner’ filed suit against the General

Electric Supply Corporation in the United - States

- District Court at’ Kansas City, Missouri, chargin;:

' . its General Electric machines with infringing claims

23, 26 and 29 of the Snyder patent. The defend- ..

ant in that case in its attempt to defeat Snyder’s —

claims relied principally ypon the ' same Jardine,

Davis, and Doughty & Davis patents, .and the

machines made under the latter two, as were relied _

upon by the Court of Appeals for the Second: Circuit .

in the Brooklyn Edison case, but Judge Otis after wit-:

nessing numerous demonstrations of these machines

_ and hearing conflicting testimony with respect thereto

found and held (App., pp. 25-33, ine., 36-39, ine.): |.

(a) That none of them did or could wash

clothes in the manzier described and ‘claimed by —

Snyder and that each differed radically from his

machine ‘in construction and operation si

(b) That Snyder reduced his invention to prac-

tice and used it more than eight months before the

earliest date claimed for the disclosure or use -of

- the machine made under the Doughty & Davis

patent... ) ee aa

_ Judge Otis thus reached the same conclusions as did

Judge Byers in the Brooklyn Edison case.’ The de-

fendant has appealed to the Eighth Cireuit Court of

-Appeals from the decree in that ‘ase adjudging these

claims valid and infringed. The record is still in

course of’ preparation and the case cannot be heard’.

before the time to apply for a writ of certiorari in the

instant cases will have expired. |

3 .

| THE PRESENT SECOND CIRCUIT CASES. ;

_- In April, 1933, and October 21, 1935, respectively,

_ petitioner filed suits against Easy Washing Machine

* Corporation and against Hurley Machine: Company

_and Electric: Household Utilities Corporation, charg-_

ing infringement of the Snyder patent. :

Feeling obliged to follow the decision of the Court

of Appeals. of the Second Circuit JR. 1414, 1437)

_+ in the, Brooklyn Edison case, supra, J udge Coxe at the

' . elose-of.a trial of short duration in which none of the

. depositiods were read, without opinion, ordered decrees

‘ in the present cases, holding claims 23, 26 and 29 of the»

Snyder patent invalid. The appeals from.these decrees

came before. the Court of Appeals for the Serond

- Cireuit on an agreed single transcript of record’

~ R. 1456). That Court, adhering to its previous de-

cision, held these claims invalid, and on April 21, 1938,

denied a petition for rehearing (R. 1480). ‘It is ‘that .

‘decision which pétitioner seeks to have reviewéd by

this Court. :

‘THE THIRD OrRCUIT DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CASE.

. Nearly a year prior to the decision of the Court of

Appeals for the Sécond Circuit inthe Brooklyn Edison

- ease, and while the decree of Judge B¥ers holding the

Snyder patent valid and infringed was still in force,

the Apex Electrical Manufacturing Company, an Ohio

corporation, -and Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., an

' Tilinois corporation, | as eo-plaintiffs, brought suit

(December 27, 1935) inthe District Court of Dela-_

ware against petitioner for a declaratory judgment to

hold the Snyder patent invalid and not infringed by

~ machines made by the Apex Electrical Manufacturing

atte ei some of which were sold by its co-plaintiff.

Petitioner filed an answer and counter-claim giving

rise to substantially the same issues as those involved

in the instant cases. It has had to resist many prelim-

‘inary motions and proceedings without a — on the

_ merits having yet been reached. oo

_ QUESTIONS INV OLVED.

Conflict between the courts of different circuits ‘ted

sents the following questions:

‘1. Whether the Circuit Court of poerrn for the |

Second Circuit erred in decreeing claims 23, 26 and 29

of the Snyder. patent i in suit invalid and in not holding

each of them valid and infringed as-decreed by the |

District Court in the Eighth Circuit.

“2 Whether the Circuit Court of Appeals for the

- Second Circuit erred in holding claims 23, 26 and 29

of the Snyder patent invalid on the authority of its

previous decision in The Maytag Company v. Brooklyn

Edison Company, Inc. case (86 F. (2d) 625) on the

Jardine British patent No. 18,202, the Davis patent _

No. 1,240,826, the Doughty & Davis patent No. 1 ,496,-_

305, where the trial court, after witnessing uemonstra-

tions of the machines of these patents and‘seeing and

hearing witnesses with respect.thereto in that case, had

- found that none of them embodied the structure or

were capable of operating in the manner disclosed and

claimed by Snyder.’

3. Whether the Circuit Court of Appeals for the

. Second Circuit erred in holding- the Doughty &

Davis patent and the machines made thereunder as an

.. anticipasion of the Snyder invention, where the trial

court had found from the evidence of witnesses who

testified before it that ‘Snyder made his. invention |

months before any date claimed for Doughty & Davis.

. a ae

_ 4, Whether the Cireuit Court of Appeals for the

Second Circuit.erred in not treating the findings of

fact of the trial court, with respect to the matters

presented under questions 2.and 3 above, as unassail-

able under the rule of this Court that-such findings

__ should be so treated where there is evidencé to support

them. Davis v. Schwartz, 155 W. 8S. 631, _ Adamson

v. Gilliland, 242 U. 8. 350, 353. ng

TI.

| REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WBIT. 7

1. Because of the limited time allowed for the pres- ~

entation of petitions for certiorari to this court under —

U.S. C., Tit. 28, See. 350, unless this Court consents to

review the decision in the instant cases, the decrees: of

‘the Second Circuit Court of , Appeals - will: beedme

‘final and these respondents, two of the largest\washing

‘machine manufacturers in the country, will have an

unfair advantage over the rest of the public, for they’

will be = ane any ap aera to pay for the

RP ev numbers of : s-using the Snyder.

patented scien shee sold ae them, and free to

make and sell them in the future, while the rest of the ~

smaller washing machine manufacturers might be re-

strained from so doing, if, as a result of the

‘appeal to the Eighth. Circuit Court of. Appeals

and. the prosecution’of the: suit in the Third

Civeuit the claims Here in controversy’ be held

- valid by this Court. In view ofthese ‘circum-

stances, and the conflict between the decision of

the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and

the decision of the.District.Court for the Western Dis-

trict of Missouri (reaching the same conclusion as

Judge Byers in‘ the Eastern District of New York) on

the question of the validity of the claims in contro-

versy, in order that the rights of the petitioner, the

various parties’ to. the pending litigations, and the

' public, with respect to the subject-matter o@ the Sny-

der patent in suit be settled, uniformly, without fur-

ther delay, expense and burdensome litigation, - it is

important that the petition herein sought be granted.

2.: Because cf the conflict between the action of the

~ Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in disregard-

ing findings of fact of the District Court (in the .

Brooklyn-Edison case on which its present decree is

predicated) based on conflieting testimony of witnesses

testifying before it, and the decisions of other

Circuit Courts of Appeals and this Court, hold-

ing such * findings unassailable ‘in ‘the absence

of a showing of want of” evidence - supporting

them. Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U. 8. 464,

477; Adamson v. Gilliland, 242 U. S, 350, 353; Davis .

_V. Schwartz, 155 U. S. 481, 636; Trane Co. v. Nash En-

.. the findings of fact of the trial court under Rules ‘52

gineering Co., 25 F. (2d) 267, 268 (C. C. A. 1); Rein-

harts, Inc. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 85 F. (2d) 628,

630 (C. C. A. 9) ; Union Trust-Co-v-White Motor Co.,

22 F. (2d) 821, 822 (C. C. A. 6); Star Can Opener Co.

v. Bunker-Clancey Mfg. Co., 41.F. (2d) 142, 144 (C. 6.

A. 8). When determining the appeal from the deci-

sion of the District Court for Missouri in the General |

Electric Supply Corporation case the Court: of Ap-

peals for the Eighth Circuit will probably be bound by.

_ and 86 -of-Rules of Civil Procedure for the District

Courts of the United States. :

3. Because of the conflict betweem the action of the

‘Court_of-Appeals for the Second Circuit in holding

claims of a patent invalid on prior patents including a

foreign one, which fail to disclose the subject matter of

such claims, and decisions of other Circuit Courts of

_ Appeals and this Court holding that a “‘a patent is to be

measured as anticipatory not by what might have been

‘made out of it, but- by what is clearly and definitely

expressed in it.’’. Carson v. American, 4 F. (2d) 463,

465 (C.C.A.9) ; Dopner v. Sheer Pharmacal Corp.,64 F.

(2d) 217, 220 (C. C. A. 8); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal

Products Co., 31 F. (2d) 427, 481 (C. C. A..3); Morley

Machine Co. v. Lancaster, 129 U. S. 263; Stéad Lens _

Co. v. Kryptok, 214 Fed. 368 (0. C. A. 8), and cases .

there cited. .

Wherefore, petitioner prays. that Writs of Cer-

. tiorari issue under the seal of this Court directed to

the United States Circuit Court-of Appeals for the

Second Circuit, sitting at New York, New .York, com-

manding said Court to certify and send to this Court

on a day to be designated, a full and complete tran-

script of the record and all proceedings of the Circuit

Court of Appeals had in these causes, to the end‘ that

~ each of these, causes may be reviewed and determined

by this Court; that the judgment herein of the Circuit

Court of Appeals. be reversed; and for such other fur-

ther relief as may seem proper.

Tuomas G. Haraut,

-WaALLACE R. Lang, ©

OscaR W. JEFFERY,

- as ae BENTON BAKER,

Counsel for Petitioner.

State of Illinois, County of Cook, ss:

Watiace R. Lang, being duly sworn,. dapeum and

\ says that he is attorney for petitioner herein, and that

the allegations thereof : are true as he verily believes.

Watuacr R. Lane.

Subseribed and sworn to before me this 31st ~~ of

May, 1938.

wr I. V. Cunran, |

NOTARIAL SEAL - Notary Public.

eS Sot =

a li ras’ ;

‘ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION.

Jurisdiction.

Petitioner would invoke the jurisdiction of this Court

' under Section 240 (a). of the Judicial Code as amended ~

by Act of February 13, 1925, U..S. ©. Tit. 28, See. 347,

to review the decreé of the Court of Appeals for the .

Second Circuit entered April 4, 1938 (R. 1461, 1462),

affirming decrees of the District Court (S. D. N. Y-)-

dismissing the bills of complaint filed- by ‘petitioner

against the respective respondents: (R. 1410, 1433).

order denying petition for rehearing. was: ‘etitered

| Eee 1938. This petition is presented on

the time allowed by statute. : : °

Statement.

“the foregoing petition contains a ‘summary of ‘the . - | ry,

‘material facts necessary to an understanding of the. | a G

reasoM® relied-upon for the allowance of the writ, as > ] 4

well as a statement ofthe questions involved in the ra

Tg ; : Nee

Specification of Errors.

The. Second Circuit Court of Appeals erred: }

1. In failing to"decree claims 23, 26:and 29 of the : fp

Snyder patent No. 1,866,779 valid, in holding them ae

invalid over the disclosures of Jardine British patent - i

No. 18,202 of 1891, Davis patent No. 1,240,826 of Sep- £ a.

tember 25, 1917, and Doughty & Davis patent No. v4 f

1,496,305 of June 3, 1924, in dismissing the bill and | $

‘awarding costs to respondents, and in not reversing .

the decrees of the ane Court with costs.

2. In affirming. the deerees of the District Court

upon the authority of its previous opinion in Maytag

v. Brooklyn Edison case (86 F. (2d) 625), in which it=

“failed to follow the findings of fact of. the trial

court that none of the machines of Jardine British; the .

Davis, and the Doughty. & Davis patents, or the ma-

chines made under the batter two, operated in, the

manner disclosed and claimed by Snyder, and j in fail-

ing to follow: said findings. ‘

3. In failing to hold, as did the trial court on the ~

same evidence in the Brooklyn Edison case, that Sny-

der reduced to practice and used the invention of his °

patent in suit prior to any disclosure or use of the,

- machines disclosed in the Doughty & Davis patent’:

1,496,305, issued June 3, 1924, nearly two years after

Snyder filed his application.

. Argument. ~ >

| aac

The federal statutes and decisions of this Court,

which make it necessary for petitioner to now file this.

petition in order to protect its rights with respect to’

the Snyder patent owned by it, are:

1. U. S8.°G,, Tit. 28, See. 350, requiring that: an

application for writ of certiorari be made within three

months after the. entry of the judgment or decree

sought to be reviewed:*

2. Ensten v. Simon, Asche é Co., 282 U. 8. 445,

requiring that, under the disclaimer statutes (Secs. 65

.*U. 8. C., Tit. .28, See. 350,

**No ‘weld of error, appeal, or writ of certiorari, intended.to bring

any judgment or: dec before the Supreme Court for review shall

be allowed or entertained unless application therefor be duly made

within three months after the entry of such judgment or decree,’ =

oe 13 | |

and 71, Title 35 U.S. C.)** where a court has held

certain claims of a patent invalid, the owner of the

patent must act with such promptness as the circum-

stances permit to vindicate his position, or to file a

‘disclaimer with respect thereto, as the provisions of the

disclaimer statute ‘‘wére intended to protect only those - fi

, who by prompt action either seek to overturn ‘an ad-

verse, ruling or retreat from a false position.”’ See, .

alsoy Triptett’ v. Lowell, 297 U. 8. 638, 642, 646..

Unless this Court consents to review the decision in

the instant cases, thé respondents, two of the largest

- . washing machine manufacturers in the country, will’ :

be free tc use the ‘Snyder invention in the future with-

out compensation, and be absolved from. any liability .

for damages or profits arising from their infringement,

even though ultimately as a result of the appeal to

the Eighth Circuit.Court of Appeals and the prosecu-

tion of the suit in the Third Circuit, the claims here

in controversy be held valid, and even though this

Court should ultimately so hold, for under the above

statutes and the decisions of this Court a petition filed

after the three months allowed by the statutes could

~ not.¥e considered.

Under such circumstances the patentee would be de-

** U. 8. C., Tit. 35, Sec. 65. - .e

‘<Disclaimer. Whenever, through inadvertence, accident, or bist, ;

and without any fraudulent or deceptive intention, a patentee has

claimed more than that of whieh he was the original or first inventor

or discoverer, his patent shall be valid for all that part which is truly

and justly his own, . . .-and any such patentee . . . may, on

payment of the fee required by law, make disclaimer of such parts of ~

the thing patented ashe shall not choose to claim er to hold by virtue

‘of the patent or assignment. . . . But no such disclaimer shall

affect any action pending at the time of its being filed, except so far

as nny relate to the question of unreasonable neglect or or delay in filing

it. (BR. 8. Sec. 4917.)’’

U. 8. O., Tit. 35, See. 71. ~

ee Sy But no patentes dhall be entitled to the beneiite of this ~

a dis-

section if he has unreasonably neglected or délayed

claimer. (R..8. Sec. 4922.)’?

a ee. . p feet

_prived of his exclusive right to make, sell and use the

invention throughout the United States given hini by

the grant of his patent, and qndents would have

undeserved advantage over other and smaller manu-

facturers of washing machines. —

ere, as here, a patent was issiied only after” an

cathadios and protracted (six -years) interference

litigation before the Patent Office, in which not only

the question. of -priority but a consideration of the -

same art upen’ which one court relied to defeat the

invention was passed upon,, and. certain claims were

sustained by the trial court in one circuit, and the Cir-

cuit Court of Appeals reversed that holding and the

court in one circuit has held the claims‘of a patent ine

.valid; where under’ the requizements of the statutes

and decisions. of this Court with respect to disclaimers,

the owner of the patent has brought suit: to vindicate

his position with respect to these claims-which .it be-

lieves to be valid and has succeeded in doing this in |

= another circuit, thereby. creating a clear conflict of de-

cisions; where the patent owner will be deprived of that

: vindication with respect to certain defendants on ac-

count of.the limited time in which review may be

sought by this Court under the statutes; where the sub-

ject-matter is of such importanée that other large man- _

- ufacturers-and sellers .of/the machine in controversy 2

~~ have brought suit for declatatory judgment in a third

circuit to determine the validity of the patent; and .-

where there is a direct conflict between the decision

of the Court of Appeals in one Circuit, on one hand,

and a decision in a District Court in another Circuit,

we respectfully submit that this Court should exercise

fi its discretionary right to review and settle the contro-

-versy with respect to that subject-matter, in order

that the rights of petitioner, the various parties to the

pending litigation, and the public be settled, uniformly

and without further expense and burdensome litiga-

tion.

II.

The decisions and decrees affecting the Snyder pat-

ent here in- controversy that of necessity have to be

given consideration are those of— _

(1) ‘Judge Byers in petitioner against Brook-

lyn Edison Co., in the Eastern District of New.

York, (11 F. Supp. 743), and the Court of Appeals

for the Second Circuit in the same case, sen F.

(2d) 625).

(2) J wdge Otis of the District Court of Mis.

souri, unreported (App., p. 13). :

(3) . Judge Coxe (R. 1410, 1433) and the Court

, of Appeals for the Second Cireuit in the instant

:eases, unreported (R. 1458).

The necessity for the consideration of the decisions.

in the Brooklyn Edison case ‘is due to the fact that in

the instant cases Judge Coxe (R. 1414, 1437) predi-

' cated his findings and. decree ‘‘upon tlie authority’’ of

- the Court of Appeals in that case, as did also that

Court in its Gociaton' in the instant cases (App., pp.

1458, 1461).

The issue. with respect to the valdity of claims 23,

26 and 29.of the Snyder patent, over which the con-- -

flict of decision arises, resolves itself into the questions

'_ (a) whether.these claims involve invention over the

disclosures of Jardine. British patent, No. 18,202, of

1891, the Davis patent No. 1,240,826, of September 3,

1917, and the machines made under the latter;.and

16 |

(b) whether the machines of the Doughty & Davis

patent No. 1,496,305,.of June 3, 1924, sho.id not be.

eliminated from consideration because they were not

originated uhtil subsequent to _ proved date of the

Snyder invention. .

The Snyder patent relates: to a new. (gyrator) type

of washing machine, in which. clothes are rapidly

washed without injury by the vigorous water action.

which suspends, manipulates and rapidly moves them

about in the water as distinguished from the previous

(rubboard, dolly, cylinder, oscillator and vacuum cup) .

types, in and by which the clothes were - dragged,

rubbed, pounded and squeezed by mechanical means

which damaged them (R. 160-1, 293, 326,152). - Oncé .

the Snyder invention was put upon the market by peti-

tioner, it abandoned the previous types it had been

making (R. 155), and has since sold over Vanes million

of these machines (R. 155).

During the early period of its introduction, the Sny-

der invention was scoffed at by competitors attempting

to sell the old type machines -(R. 155, 634, 183, 199,

324). ‘Only after it came to bé demanded by house-

wives in preference to any of the types that preceded

it (R. 227, 160, 326, 273-4, 178, 328), did competitors, .

including the respondents and other manufacturers in-

volved in litigation over the Snyder patent, appropri-

ate it and make it to the substantial exclusion of all

_ other types (R. 328). It has supplied a long and recog- *

nized want (Findings, J udges Byers and Otis, App.,

pp. 7, 23, 24).

This situation was fully appreciated by Judge —

and Judge Otis in the Brooklyn Edison and General

- Blectric Supply litigations, each of whom so found and

held after watching répeated demonstrations of the

Snyder invention and the machines of the prior artand _

“17

hearing conflicting testimony with respect thereto

(Findings, App., pp. 6, 7, 23, 24). The Court‘of Ap-

peals for the Second Circuit, disregarding these find-

ings of Judge Byers in the Brooklyn Edison case and

without witnessing demonstrations of the machines, -

held the Snyder patent invalid simply on the disclosure _

of the Jardine British patent No. 18,202 (App., p. 46),

the Davis patent No. 1,240,826 (App., p. 48) and ma-

chines made under it, and on the Doughty & Davis pat-

ent No. 1,496,305 (App., p. 52) and the machines made

under it, even though the trial court had held and

found from conflicting testimony that Snyder made his

invention before the earliesf date claimed for Doughty

& Davis (R. 91-94, ine.; Findings, App., pp. 7, 10).

' The Court of Appeals ‘in the instant cases affirmed

the decrees upon the authority of its own decision in

the Brooklyn Edison case, ‘despite the fact that J udge

- Otis had adopted the opinion of Judge Byers after giv-

ing due consideration to it and the opinion of the Court _

of Appeals in the Brooklyn Edison case, aS required |

by this Court in Triplett -v. Lowell, 297 U. S. 638, 644

(App., p. 14), and after he had watched demonstra-.

tions sinflar to those made before Judge Byers of

machines made in accordance with the Jardine British, .

the Davis, and the Doughty &.Davis patents, and heard

conflicting testimony with respect thereto (App., pp. 25-

33, ine. ; 36-41, ine.), and had found that none of them

utilized the Snyder construction and did not and. could

_ not operate in the manner disclosed and claimed by

Snyder (App., pp. 29, 33, 41), and after J udge Otis

had also found from the testimony of witnesses taken

in open court before him that—

“‘Snyder’s reduction to practice and use of his

invention in May .of 1920, was more than eight

months before the earliest ‘date claimed by defend-

ant for the disclosure or use of the 1900 Com-

pany’s Form 4 machine made under the Doughty

& Davis patent.. The Doughty & Davis machines

ean not ‘be used as an anticipation .of Snyder.”’

' (App., p. 41.) :

The errors of the Court of Appeals with respect to

the validity of the Snyder claims in controversy and

the conflict of its opinion with that of Judge Byers and

Judge Otis are shown by statements made in its opin-

ion in the Brooklyn Edison case, which it substantially

adopts as its opinion in-the instant cases, concerning:

(a) - The machines disclosed and claimed in the

Snyder patent ;

(b) Statements showing that it disregarded the .

plain limitations of the Snyder claims in inter-

preting them ; :

(ce) :Attributing to the Jardine British patent

operations neither disclosed nor described in it;

and of which J udge — said (11 F. Supp. 743,

752:

“One can read the Jardine pore closely and

~ often and yet not find any teaching whatever of a

device to perform the operation of washing ac-

cording to what Snyder says he invented.’’

(d) Accepting at face value statements « con-

tained in the Davis patent, despite the fact that

the machine disclosed in it was of the old rubboard ©

type (abandoned by its makers, the 1900 Company,

before it took a license under the Snyder patent), |

having a different construction and operating in a .

different manner from that of Snyder, as had been

_ previously found by Judge Byers who had wit- |

- nessed demonstrations of it and heard ¢onflicting

ro 19

_ testimony concerning it (11 F. Supp. 7438, 751)

and as was later found by Judge Otis under simi-

lar circumstances (App., pp. 25-31, ine.) +

(e), Its failure to follow the findings of Judge ‘

Byers that Snyder had made his invention and re-

duced it to practice months prior to the earliest

date claimed for the Doughty and Davis machine.

(a) With reference to the Snyder invention the

errors which have brought about the conflict of deci-

sions are well illustrated by the following:

Judge Byers found and held in the Brooklyn Edison . -

"ease upon which the Court of Appeals decided the in- —

stant cases (11 F. Supp. 743, 745; App., p. 4):

**8. he Snyder invention, as’embodied in the

Maytag machine, consists of a tub, in the bottom

of which is a power-driven iinpeller called a gyra-

tor, consisting of a disc substantially less in -di-

ameter than the tub, having a cone-shaped center,

and upon the dise are mounted four radially dis-

posed blades. This impeller is oscillated at such

speed as to set in motion violently opposed cur- . -

rents of water-which establish a flow outward —

from the bottom center of the tub, upward at the

sides to the surface of the water, and back to the

center and down to the inner portion of the im-

peller_ blades. The fabrics being washed,’ if the

mass is not too great, follow that course, turning

ores constantly. The water is hot and contains

eoap, and at-the end of ten minutes, more or less,

the fabrics so treated are cleansed. The- success

of the operation is not questioned.”’

(11 F. Supp. 743, 745, Finding 7, App.,:p. 3):

“The teaching of the Snyder patent, stated in -

simple language, is that it departed from the un- —

derstanding prevalent in 1920 or thereabouts that

washing machine technique required for its suc-

eess‘a method of rubbing, dragging, squeezing,

twisting and manipulating the clothes within the ——

tub so as to duplicate the process involved in the

manual use of the scrub or wash board, when

washing was accomplished entirely by hand, and

substituting for that a process: of contorting the

fabrics mainly by water action, se that'the defor-

mation of the threads and consequent dislodgment

and migration of foreign particles from the

meshes and threads themselves would be accom-. .

plished without subjecting the fabrics to the heavy

wear and tear previously encountered. The Sny-

der invention accomplished this new result. It —

washes clothes satisfactorily. It was a response

to repeated efforts to meet known requirements,

- has been commercially successful and has largely

supplanted the previous types of machines.’’

“The Court of Appeals disregarded ‘these _findings, —

_-and despite the fact-that the Snyder - patent claims are’

predicated on a machine for washing clothes by vigor-

ous water action, said (86 F. (2d) 627): ;

‘“‘The evidence shows that the machine made -

under the patent and the machines of the appel-.

lant, as well, cannot wash by water action alone.’’

‘The undisputed evidence in the instant cases is that

these machines do wash by water action alone: (Ray

Ryan, R. 178, 180, 195, 212, 222; Gladys. Ryan, R.

227-8; Beushausen, R. 273; Bones, R. 160-1), .

. The Court of Appeals said (86 F. (2d) 627):

‘‘In the machine made under the patent the cir-*

cular movement of the water and the clothes does

in fact bring the clothes and different portions of

them rapidly im contact with the impeller blade

- which scrub, beat, and flex the clothes to conform

fhe threads and’ loosens the dirt from the inter-~

stices of the fabrics.’’

There is no evidence to support this statement aad

21 |

the evidence here-clearly establishes the contrary (Ray

Ryan, R. 178, 180, 195, 212, 222; Gladys saan R. 22i-

8; Beushausen, R. 273; Bones, R. 160-1). ;

(b) Claims 23, 26 and 29 in suit are ts limited to

_ a water impeller mounted in the bottom of the tub. .

Claim 23 (p. 8, line 5) is limited to ‘‘a rotary recipro- -

cating impeller mounted in the tub adjacent its bet-

tom.’’ Claim 26 calls for ‘‘said tub and impeller be-

ing so constructed and azranged as to’ cooperate while |

the impeller is in operation for whipping the fluid and

violently forcing it owtwardly, upwardly.”’ This action

can only be secured by an impeller mounted at the

Bottom of the tub to which the claim is thus clearly

limited. Claim 29 calls for “‘a rotary reciproeatory

impeller mounted adjacent the bottom of the tub,’’ and

~ states that ‘‘the impeller is rapidly reciprocated to

cause the liquid to be positively forced outwardly up-

: wardly and circumferentially along the interior of the

tub in one general direction, and then outwardly, up-

wardly and circumferentially along the _— in the op-

posite general direction.”’

Each of these claims is also limited to features of

construction, arrangement of parts and operation

found by Judges Byers and Otis, but’ disregarded by

. the Court of Appeals, which clearly distinguish each

_ of them from the prior ; art upon which the Court. relied

to defeat. them. / |

Claim 23, for example, “ills for the ‘ein com-

bination of structure and operation:

(a), a tub, “‘the interior surface of which ts fres

. from rubbing projections,”

(b) ‘‘a@ rotary reciprocatory impeller soantied

_ in the tub adjacent its bottom, having a base and a

plurality of blades, each of which is of substantial

ens ded itins sista oe at 7" ae ne : \

_ height and laterai area, and a central portion pro-

* jecting upwardly from the base, the upper surface

area of the base being considerably less than:the

horizontal cross-sectional area of the tub through ©

its upwardly extending portion, the margin of said

base being spaced a substantial distance away from

the he upwardly ex extending portion of the tub,’

“(e) ‘‘said tub and impeller being so constructed

—_—, 3 and positioned relative to each other than when the

eer : impeller is rapidly reciprocated each blade and its.

: re . adjacent portion of the impeller base will simul-

taneously drive the cleansing fluid in one and then

an opposite outward upward, circulatory direction

toward and around the clothes, and act in co-oper-

ation with the interior of the tub to cause violently

flowing. opposed currents of liquid to meet and |

- flow inwardly and downwardly toward the central

-portion of the tub, and substantially suspend the

materials in the fluid while being washed,”’

-(d) ‘‘a rotary reciprocating drive shaft extend-

ing upwardly through the bottom of the tub into

the interior thereof for aapporting the ow

_ for redrvmerets in a fixed plane,”

(e) ‘‘and power means for rapidly reciprocat-

ing the shaft and — for the purposes set

forth.’’ |

In referring fo claims 23 and 26.of the Snyder pat-

ent, the Court of Appeals said (86 F. (2d) 627 and

628): sae

‘the apparatus claims eal for washing clothes

partly by water action and partly by rubbing the

‘ elothes against the moving agitator. blades.’’

._ **Claims-23 and 26 provide for three mechanical

elements... . The elements are a tub, a substan-

tially imperforate rotary impeller having blades

PR VRP Sey Sp tener te may nun de

VW.

_ of substantial height and lateral area projecting

into the tub and mounted to operate in.a fixed

plane and power means for rapidly reciprocating

the impeller. These elements in combination tllus- —

trate and describe the patented claims. , .

The impeller may be of any shape or tt may or

may not have a central tapered dome, and the

blades may be.of any shape and need not be uni- :

form or equally spaced.’’ .

‘‘Any shape tub will do. . The interior surface

may be corrugated or smooth.”’

n examination of the claims in ‘suit will show

+th# there is no foundation for the statement

that these claims call for washing clothes partly by

water action and partly by rubbing the clothes against

the moving agitator blades. The rest of the state-

ments above quoted fail to take into consideration and

disregard the-limitations. of each of claims 23, 26 and

29 here in suit, which are so essential to the successful

operation of the Snyder invention and so clearly dis-

tinguish it from the art relied upon by the Court of

Appeals to defeat thé claims, as will be — seen

from a reading of any of them. |

patent (App., p. 46) (11 F. Supp. 748, 752):

“One can read the Jardine patent closely and

often and yet not find any teaching whatever of a

device to perform the operation of. washing ac- |

cording to, what Snyder says he invented. Jar-

dine’s instruction was of a means to prevent the

mangling of fabrics beneath the disc. -The pres-

ence of the ribs in the tub, and the necessary

squeezing of fabrics against them by the blades of ©

the agitator, are too clearly indicated by, this pat-

entee to admit of misunderstanding.”’

‘(e) Judge Byers found with sii to the J sittin |

The Court of Appeals, disregarding this finding, ,

. said (86 F. (2d) 629):

“The British patent to Jardine of 1891 also com-

. prised these elements”’

of the claims 23 and 26. In making this Mlemnenit it

‘also completely disregarded the plain limitations of

each of the claims. Its statement that the Jfrdine

patent is—

_*‘eharacterized by the absence of rubboard sur- .

faces within the tub and by a vigorous agitation

of water by the agitator. The only rubbing that

occurs is between the clothes and the agitator,”’

disregards the finding of Judge Byers and reads into :

the Jardine patent a disclosure neither present nor in-

_ timated by her. Furthermore, this statement disre- —

gards the undisputed evidence to =e contrary (R. 319,

320). ..

The Jardine patent daasty shows a series of large

projections on the interior of the tub of its dolly type

machine, which plainly co-act with the dolly in the

rubbing and scrubbing of the clothes between them

while the dolly is operated. The use of the term

*“‘dolly”’ by Jardine seventeen times in her patent in-

' dicates the character of its action. The understanding

of the term “dolly” in connection with washing ma- .

chines at the time this patent was taken out and subse-

quently clearly ‘indicates its action. Webster’s New’

International Dictionary defines it as—.

‘A wooden instrument used to beat or stir the

_@lothes‘in the process of washing.”’

The statement made by the Court of Appeals (86 F.

(2d) 629): |

“The vertical ribs or projections on the inner sur-

face of the tub [J ardine | mn no functions and

| 25

do not affect the ceils operation when the agi-

tator.is reciprocated instead of being ‘revolved: -

. als without any support whatever in the present record,

and is contrary to the undisputed testimony on the .

subject and directly contrary to the finding of Judge.

Byers above quoted (11 F. Supp. 743, 752). The hold-

ing that this Jardine patent discloses the operation

‘described ang claimed by Snyder is flatly disputed

even by defendant’s expert in the Brooklyn women

case, who said of that structure: ‘

“The clothes are rubbed, pounded, dragged and

squeezed in the operation of that ne, and

that that was definitely the fact.’’ |

The statement of the Court uf Appeals od F, (24)

629) that: |

‘The requirements of this claim [Snyder 3] are |

fulfilled in all respects . . .-by the machines

made pursuant to the patent to Jardine”’

is erroneous not only as to the fulfillment of the Sny-

der claims, but there is not the slightest evidence to

show that any machines were ever made pursuant to

the Jardine patent. :

The Patent Office considered the. J ardiiie patent

and also found that it did not embody the Snyder in-

vention (R. 1236) and apres the claims in suit over

it.

It was only by a complete Peveiiind of the Sieben

of the-Snyder patent, and the limitations of each of the

claims asserted, the findings of the Patent Office and of -

the trial court with respect thereto and to the operation -

of the machine made under the Snyder patent, and by -

reading into the Jardine British patent things neither

taught nor disclosed in it, and reading out of it cer-

tain eleménts necessary to its operation, that the Court

s | ie | |

+ . i ts

of Appeals reaches the conclusion that this Jardine

patent invalidates the Snyder claims. :

(d) Referring to the Davis.patent the Court of Ap-

peals said (86 F. (2d) 628):

‘“‘Tests made demonstrated the movements of the

4 . ~ wash water on the fabrics to be of the same char-

. acter as that made by the appéllee’s machine with

the inverted impeller. - Clothes were washed.by the

rubbing or pressure of the vanes coupled with the.

. circulation of the water in the tub directed and

forced by these vanes. Thus, in the washing oper- .

_ ation, the movement of the water in the Davis pat-

oe ented machines does in turn mayer’ a similar

movement to the fabric.”

’ The evidence disclosed no such tests. After Doughty

and Davis had devoted much time and effort-to eradi-

cate the defects of the Davis machine, Mr. Doughty a

himself wrote the following to his company’s patent ;

attorney on March 23, 1921:

‘Another advantage results from the avoidance of

an action which occurs in the top agitator machine-

[Davis] which ‘causes the agitator to sink in the

water and restrict the free movement of the

clothes. ‘The reason for this objectionable action

is this: the vanes on the agitator then in motion

- eause the water to flow from the center toward

the side of the tub. Consequently, the center is .

lowered and the agitator, which iis only held in |

position by floating upon the water, or by the |

supporting effect of the clothes, is drawn down .

with the result of comp» essing the clothes restrain-

’ - ing their free movement and increasing the power

, « required to operate the washer.”’. (R. 1317.)

It i isa striking circumstance. that the very'same men

who were trying to operate under the Davis patent,

one of them Davis himself, tried .to.surmount the

Tee

. ‘ . ‘ . uv

ARERR MA NMR Br on sir " " ° . re ~

serious defects inherent in the downwardly’ projecting

_ **freely moyable vertically’’ rubboard by his work in:

producing the Doughty & Davis machine which was

not started until months. after Snyder had niade lis

invention and reduced it to practice. ‘ The evidence

-further makes it clear? |

~ (a) That the rubboard of the Devis machine i is

not mounted for operation in a’ fired plane, as -

-ealled for by the Snyder claims, byt is slidably

mounted in the cover and “‘freely movable verti- —

cally’’ (last line Davis patent claim, App., p. 53)

(Behan, R. 377, 383; _ Bones, R. 156-7; —

R. .303-12)..

(b) That (R. 309):

‘‘The clothes are not carried in suspension in the

Davis machine . .... and they are entirely car-

ried down to:the bottom and: pressed down by the

rubboard, with yery obvious serubbing against the

side of the tub and bottom of the tub.

(c). That the mass of. clothes compressed. be-

~ tween the rubboard and the bottom of the tub is

scrubbed by and between these ‘elements (Yeo-_

~mans, R. 305-6) instead of being washed by vigor- .

ous water action. (The evidence depicts the radical

differences between the construction and operation —

of the Davis and Snyder machines, R. 308-12.)

That the Davis machine-is of the rubboard type and

operates in substantially Hhe-same way as all machines —

.» ot that:type is clearly shown by the present record (R.

178, 200, 274, 303-12, 318:9). Evidence ‘concerning

these rubboard type machines demonstrates their ‘im-

practicability in use and that their plan of operation

__ is radically different from that of Snyder. (Ray Ryan,’

. R. 178,190, 195, 200; Beushausen, R. 273-4; Yeomans, °

i Ree Cieiieh |

R. 308-12, 318-9; Gladys Ryan, R. 224-8; Esther Ryan,

R. 245-7; Winger, R. 283-5; Weeks, R. 238; Grober,

R. 257, 160:)

The statement of the Court of couaile (86 F. (2d)

628):

_ “Mere speeding up or obtaining a greater rapidity

than that of the Davis machine did not constitute |

inventive thought over Davis”’

is beside the point as shown by the present record.

The ‘tere speeding ‘up of the Davis machine cannot

change its mode of operation and would be detrimental -

in use; as is shown by the undisputed testimony here.

(R. 479, Osgood said the Davis machine was at first

operated at a higher speed and had to be slowed down. )

‘The holding of invalidity of the Snyder claims in»

view of this Davis patent completely disregards se

testimony of respondents’ own witnesses, the finding,

of fact of Judge Byers with respect thereto. It is

likewise in conflict with the findings of Judge Otis

Bropklyn Edison case, but before its decision in the

Br after the decision of the Court of Appeals in the

instant cases. He found (App. p- 29):

_ “The demonstr ations of these machines by plain-

tiff, considered in connection with defendant’s own

witnesses, and the statements made by Mr. Doughty

in hig Yetter to.Mr. Clark of 1921, shows that in the

operation of.the machines of the Davis patent the .

_ elothes are compressed and rubbed as a mass be-

‘tween the slidably mounted rubboard and the bot-’

tom ofthe tub, and that the clothes are washed in

it by the rubbing action of the rubboard and the.

rubbing of the mass against the corrugated in-

terior of ‘the tub, and in a manner radiéally dif-

ferent from that "described, disclosed and claimed

in the Snyder patent.’’

The Davis patent was considered by. the Patent, Office

£@

too Sipeesgnenenpsgrcetsmameaceencenysicomgm aren

and held not to disclose or describe the Snyder con-

struction and operation, or contain the combination of:

- elements here claimed (R. 1113). It taught the 1900 ©

Company’s engineers nothing concerning the gyrator

type machine embodying the Snyder invention, for

with full knowledge of this Davis device they spent a

long time experimenting with the Maytag machine in

its plant (R. 370-1) before going into the production ~

of its gyrator type machine now being manufactured

and sold. by the 1900 Company under licensé of the

Snyder patent (R. 386) :

The illustrations below show the diametrically | op-

posed operation of the Davis and Snyder machines.

Davis Machine.

Notice the rubboard slidably

mounted in the cover. which

compresses the clothes into a

mass and washes by rubbing

and squeezing this mass be-.

tween the rubboard and the

bottom of the tub.

Snyder Machine.

Notice the ‘water impeller

- mounted in the bottom of the

tub for operation in a fixed

‘plane whereby the clothes are

washed as individual pieces by

the violent water action.

When one- understands the radical differences be-

tween the construction and operation of the dolly (Jar-

dine) type and the rubboard (Davis) type machines,

it must be found, as two trial courts’found, that these

ee ee ee ee

etna. ol

mechanisms and their operation are entirely different

from that of Snyder. Instead of invalidating the

Snyder invention covered by the claims in suit, they

emphasize the Snyder invention. Washing machine

manufacturers generally were familiar with these old

_ type machines and the manner of using them, but they

suggested nothing to the searching manufacturers com-

parable to the invention of-Snyder which has largely

supplanted all previous types in hcmes in this country.

It was only by disregarding the construction and

docile of the machines made under the Davis pat-

. ent and disclosed in it, and disregarding the findings

of the Patent Office and the trial court with respect

thereto that. the Court reached the conclusion that this

patent embodies the Snyder invention.

(e) ‘The Court. of Appeals in referring to the

Doughty & Davis patent said (86 F. (2d) 628):

‘‘Form 4 machine, made as described in Doughty-

Davis patent, No. 1,496,305, prior to Snyder, . .

providesgthe same circulation movement of the

water and the fabrics. It too seid Wi the pat- -

ent.”’

The evidence in the Brooklyn Edison case and here

clearly establishes that Snyder made hia invention

prior to the earliest date claimed for Doughty & Davis

(Miller, R. 563-6; Stephen, R. 594-5; Bradt, R. 621-3;

Mooar, R. 602-3; Elliott, R. 588-90; Herbst, R. 647-51:

Thornton, R. 635-8; Mason, R. 640-1). Judge Byers

found from this testimony taken in open court before

him that (App., p. 10; 11 F. Supp. 757)—

‘“‘Snyder disclosed his invention to Frederick F.

Mason on January 21, 1921, and that Snyder’s re-

. duction to practice preceded that date by several

months.’’

¥ P My omer niente ae bide maianeemedteed oe ow

The testimony in the present case is the same as that on

which Judge Byers made this finding. On substan-—

tially the same testimony given in open court, Judge

Otis in the General Electric Supply case found that

Snyder reduced to practice his invention months prior

to the earliest date claimed for the Doughty & Davis |

_machine, as follows (App., p. 41):

“*Snyder’s: reduction to practice and use of his i in- -°

-.vention in May of 1920, was more than eight

months before the earliest date claimed by defend-

- ant [the same as claimed by respondents here] for

the disclosure or use of the 1900 Company’s Form

4 machine made under the Doughty & Davis pat-

ent. The Doughty & Davis machines can not be

used as an anticipation of Snyder.”’ .

The rule announced by this Conk in Davis v.

Schwartz, 155 U. S. 631, 636; Adamson v. Gilliland,.

242 1a S. 390, 353, that—

“so far as the finding of the master or judge who

_ saw the witnesses ‘depends upon conflicting testi-”.

mony, or upon the credibility of witnesses, or so

far.as there is any testimony consistent with the |

finding, it must be treated as unassailable’ ”’ -

is applicable to the gestimony concerning the Snyder

invention as Judge Byers found (as did also Judge.

Otis) that this testimony established Snyder’s date of

invention as prior to any work done by Doughty &

Davis, after seeing and hearing the witnesses who ap-

peared before him (App., p. 10, 11 F. Supp. 757). The

Court of Appeals cleariy departed from this-rule when

it failed to follow the finding of Judge Byers in the

Brooklyn Edison case.

- Judge Byers, and Judge Otis after witnéssing dem-

onstrations of the Snyder and the Doughty & Davis —

machines and hearing testimony concerning them inde- |

pendently found that (App., P. 39):

% TR PPO RENTING Seat its mies iemaaeindé, - "

_ .) eeeEeeEeeEeEEeeEeeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEEEEEyEEEEeEe=EeEeEeeeECOe ee eee eee

PP ee ey Aes 3 Lee

- * ge

‘‘The Snyder washing machine with its impeller

having. a base of substantially. less diameter than

the upper portion of its tub and having blades of

substantial height and lateral area and operating

this at high speed to impet the n necessary amount

of washing fluid so vigorously and in such a man-

ner as to substantially suspend the clothes by the |

water action while washing them, is elearly dis- '

tinguished from the structure and disclosed opera-

tion of the Doughty & Davis machine.”? ——

“There is thus a ‘direct conflict between the decision

of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and

the findings of fact of J udge Byers and Judge Otis,

both with respect to the fact that Snyder made his in-

vention before any date. claimed for Doughty & Davis, . -

and with respect to the radical differences in construc-

tion and operation of their machine and that of Snyder.

| eS

In reaching its conclusions as to invention the Court

of Appeals disregarded the decisions of this Court and

‘the findings of Judge Byers in the Brooklyn Edison

_ case, later fully concurred in by Judge Otis, which |

demonstrated invention over the prior art relied upon ~

by the Court of Appeals to defeat that patent. Both

trial courts followed the pronouncements of this Court

in Diamond Rubber Co. v. Consolidated, 220 U. S. 428,

434, where it said in speaking of the rubber tire a

there involved:

“It attained an end nit sttainnd by seit in

the prior art, and has been accepted as the ter-

mination of the struggle for’a completely success- -

ful tive. - It possesses such. amount of change from

the prior art as to have received the approval of

the Patent Office, and is entitled to the presump-

tion of invention which attaches to a patent. Its_

simplicity should not blind us as to its character. - eae wee saianetngss

Many .things, and the patent law abounds in illus- ae 7

trations, seem obvious after they have been done,

and ‘in the light of the accomplished result,’ it is

often a matter of wonder how they so long ‘eluded’

the search of the discoverer and set at defiance the

speculations of inventive genius.’ Pearl v- Ocean

Mills, 11 Off. Gaz. 2. . . °. .the law has other

tests of the invention than subtle conjectures of

what might have been seen and yet-was not. It

regards a change as eviderice of novelty, the ac-

ceptance and ‘utility of change as a further evi-

dence, even as-demonstration.”’

- Judge Byers found (App., p. 5):

“11. The Maytag machine, embodying the. Sny-

der invention, was first put on the market in 1922

. and substantial sales were made in that year; sub- fates

‘sequent commercial success has rewarded the

plaintiff, so that down to the trial some 2,000,000 . <2

machines have been sold, of which 172,000 had the 3 .

‘low center post illustrated in ‘the patent, and the —

balance the high center post later adopted. That

element is conceded not to affect the issues here

involved. . ae : |

‘12. Comparatively: little advertising of the .

Maytag machine embodying the Snyder invention

was done down to 1925, but its sales were natu-

rally accompanied by increasing publicity and

large sums came'to be expended for advertising in

later years.. This was after competitors’-machines

_ of the same.type appeared upon the market.

““13, Atethe outset the dealers were skeptical

concerning the claims of the plaintiff that its new

washing machines so operated as to wash clothes ©

by water action.. Competitors who were then sell-

ing the various types of previous machines above

referred to fostered that skepticism. It is not

,, contradicted that plaintiff’s machine was referred

to in trade circles as an ensu.age cutter, and was

RR Ran ON ge grt ey ae

aie EOE

34.

otherwise derided both by dealers. and salesmen

from competing manufacturers. :

‘+14, Contemporaneously with the early intro-

duction of the: Maytag machines the A B C Com-

pany and the Easy Company, manufacturers of

the defendant’s A B C and Easy machines, re- -

spectively, acquired Maytag machines, embodying |

the Snyder invention, for the information of their

experimental staffs.

**15. In about 1925 and 1926 competitors’ ma-

chines appeared upon the market of the same

type.as Maytag, that is, they had a bottom posi-

- tioned impeller, power driven, and of the same

general appearance, and the same claims were

made for them in pamphlets issued by the manu-

facturers as were made by the Maytag Company,

namely,—that in these machines, washing was

--—done by water action with resulting saving in time

and wear and tear upon the fabrics. That condi-

tion has continued to. prevail down to the time

wuen this suit was started.

‘The assertions in all of the advertising sien,

and there is a substantial bulk in evidence, are

flamboyant and unrestricted to the effect that the —

A B ©, Easy and Thor washing machines do their

work. by water action, etc. The defendant itself

distributed ‘some of these pamphlets.

‘16. The issuance of the Snyder patent was

delayed for over six years by a vigorously con-

tested interference proceeding resulting in a de-

. eision in Snyder’s favor by the Court of Customs -

and Patent Appeals (Unruh v..Snyder, 49 Fed.

(2d) .1038) and another such proceeding was at-

tempted by Altorfer. without success. The con-

sideration given the Snyder invention and appli-

cation by the various.tribunals of the Patent Office.

and the Court during these proceedings and the

unusual strain and stress of this searching process

strengthens the usual presumption arising out of

the issue of a patent.”’

ee ne eee

Similar findings were later made by J udge Otis:

(Nos. 6-13, ine., App., p. 24) including: |

‘12. The General Electric Company sold the

plaintiff company motors for use on its Gyrator

machines made under the Snyder patent during

the entire period from 1922 until-the end of 1930

(R. 193-4), Its engineers and other representa-

tives became thoroughly familiar with these May-

- tag machines through visits to The Maytag Com- .

pany plant and its experimental department dur-

ing this period. This was until shortly before it.

first appropriated the Snyder invention and

placed it upon the market in the form of ‘the ma-

chines here charged to infringe. Since that time

the General Electric Company has claimed for its”

washing ‘machine sold by defendant the ‘same in-

herent advantages and method of operation de-

Ppicted in the Snyder patent.

‘613, The machine of the Snyder invention has

had an unusual commercial record, plaintiff hav-

ing sold approximately three million machines

utilizing it (R. 187).”’

The Court of Appeals failed to follow these findings

and ‘the decision of this Court on which they were

based.

i respectfully submit that under the circumstances

and for the reasons. stated in. the petition and elab-

orated in the argument that the petition should be

granted in the interests of petitioner, the public, and e

the Pow and proper administration of justice.

THOMAS G. HaIGcutT, »

Watnace R. Lane,

_ Oscar W. JEFFERY,

BENTON Baker,

Counsel for Petitioner.

1,866,779

3 Sheets-Sheet 1

Ae eT NS ESE

WASHING MACHINE

Filed June 14, 1922

_ HLF. SNYDER

July 12, 1932.

AP LEAL Soe Nii 5a ra gm

July 12, 1932. ..

H. F. SNYDER

WASHING MACHINE

Filed June 14, 1922

1,866,779

3 Sheets-Sheet 2

‘39

july 12,1932. H. F, SNYDER 1,866,779

WASHING MACHINE

Filed June 14, 1922 \ 3 Sheets-Sheet 3

cae 64.4 wae

77 92°

: &

nn |=

, Ay A

SURREQAAREGRRRAZIN ~~

—

+ and weak owing to aging,

, » tive of the up

gyrate therein, so coact that the

- ¢leansed are.

Patented July 12, 1932

PATENT OFFICE

. ener: ee. |

1,866,779

- UNITED STATES

HOWARD F. SNYDER, OF NEWTON,"IOWA, ASSIGNOR, BY MESNE ASSIGNMENTS, TO THE

MAYTAG COMPANY, OF NEWTON, IOWA, A CORPORATION OF DELAWARE

WASHING MACHINE

‘ e ,

Application filed Juné 14, 192%. Serial Mo. $68,158.

_ ‘The present invention relates to a power

driven washing machine and more’ particu-

larly tothe construction of the tor or

impeller and tub thereof and the gyrator

4 or impeller operating mechanism for such

machine. oe

_ Among the objects of the invention is to

provide a novel construction-designed to wash

“and thoroughly cleanse clothes, fabrics and

10 various similar materials of all kinds. My

invention is equally efficient in washing fab-

rics, and other similar materials of a very

delicate nature, that may.have become frail

wear and other-

.wise. Among such delicate materials are in-

cluded laces, nettings, veils, fine silks,

lace curtains and various other afticles.. Very

often valuable articles, relics, heirlooms and

other objects of great value are composed

partly or wholly of fine and frail textures,

such that they cannot be easily washed —

soiled, since thefr nature would not pe it

subjecting them to the rigors.of the ordinary

wa ing machine operation, or even —

235 by hand: By my invention, the washing an

cleansing of such objects is not only made pos-

sible, but practicable, such that most delicate

and frail Objects can be handled mechanically

' during the washing operation without mar-

to ring their character and beauty. By reduc-

ing friction on the articles to

life of the article is pfeserved. =.

These and the other objects of the invention

are attained by so constructing and i-

85 ating the tub and tlie gyrator of the was ing

machine, and so. operating the gyrator tha

the weight of the articles does not interfere

with the gyrator, or its action, or with the

tub and its i eg with bg ator. In

49 my invention the gyrgtor and tub, i -

re or lower end position of the

‘20

not only giver. a definite wash-

ing and cléansing movement, but are also

45 maintained, during such movement, in a sus-

~ pended condition in the liquid, so that the

- rapid and energetic alternating rotary move-

- ments of the gyrator do not interfere with

the goods or cause thein any injury or dam-

6 age, whilé.at the same time the and the

washed the .

-affectéd by the gyrator operating or actuat-

wash water, (or the rinse water, when rins-

ing), are turbulently swirled or whirled

about with a surging and seething movement

within the tub. Even in the form of the in-

vention illustrated, wherein the liquid impel-

ling blades are disposed at the bottom:of the

‘tub, the action of the agitator on the-liquid

is. to constantly press the clothes upwardly in

.& swirling formation so that they are main-

tained in.substantial suspehsion in the liquid

above the blades. To this end the. tub pref-

erably has a smooth interior not interrupted

by flanges or other projections, and prefer-

ably has an inclined bottom ‘portion so ‘asso-

ciated with the gyrator and the remainder &

of the tub as to cooperate therewith in aid o

such action. ROE.

One of the principal objects of this inven-

- tion resides in providing this improved meth-

od of and apparatus for cleansing fabrics.

without bringing them into substantial rub-

bing contact with the walls of the tub or the

liquid agitating mechanism. .

As another object of the invention, the

tor is provided with flanges which, dur-

ing the, alternations thereof, act to succes-

sively impart movement to the contents of

the tub, such that the resultant dire¢tion of

movement of the contents in the embodiment

illustrated in the drawings is normally radi-

ally outward from the central portion of the

tub, then upwardly, then inwardly and then

downwar ward the center of the gyra-

tor, and yet at the same.time there is a gen-

erally rotary progression or movement about

the inside of the tub, first in one direction’

and then in an opposite direction, such move-

ment being in the nature of a gyratoty ac-

tion or movement and appearing to be that

ofa helix around a ring.’ In'this way the

’ goods or objects undergoing the washing op-

eration ate driven about in the tub in devious

paths, while at the same.time the wash water

or cleansing fluid is being vigorously agi-

tated and rigorously moved about the tub -

in devious paths to — the washable ma»

terials, whereby they will not be injurjeusty.

ing mechanism. This mechanism thay be

readily thrown into and out of operative

connection with the gyrator at will. -

‘. §till further objects of this invention reside.

in providing a novel construction of agitator

g blade; and in further providing resilient

means, tending to normally render the gyra-

‘tor inoperative but yieldable to render the

same operative when manually actuated ; to

provide a combined means for guarding

against the accidental contact or interfer-

. ence of the operator with the driving mech-

' gnism of ‘the washing machine and main-

taining the driving mechanism.in effective

driving condition, as by constantly main-

yg taining a driving belt taut; and to provide

other features having the objects, advantages

and capabilities hereafter*more fully ‘ap-

- pearing. oa

Due to the constructign and arrangement’

» of the tub, gyrator and ae mechanism,

. this machine provides a decidedly new meth-

od of cleaning fabrics, in that. while_the

clothes are washed thoroughly, this is done

_by the action of the water itself on the ma-

# terials as distinguished from their being

rubbed or drawn through the water by a

dolly or other mechanism, or tumbled against

the sides of the tub or rubbed against pro-

jections on the interior of the tub. In my

machine the clothes are driven and swirled

about in and by the water in the interior

of the smooth tub. The materials never come

. in. any substantial cuntact with:either the

tub, or the gyrator which initially causes‘the

% agitation, seething and surging of the water

on the interior of the tub. The peculiar

movement of the water caused by the action

of my gyrator in-operation largely prevents

tubbing the clothes against the container or

" tor and eliminates the deterioration of

, he materials being washed by it. These and

other advantages which I find it difficult to

explain because of the unusual movement

of the water are possessed by my’ machine.

“ By the term tor is meant an alternat-

ing rotary member operable to effect. move-

ments of fluids and materials from the cen-

tral portion of the member toward its outer

or borders.

ed the drawings illustrating a preferred

form of the invention :—

*Fig. 1 is a vertical sectional view taken

through the washing machine:

Fig. 2 is a horizontal sectional view taken.

through the tub, showing: the gyrator in top

plan view, =. '

_ Fig. 3 is » sectional view showing por-

‘tions of the operating mechanism.

Fig. 4 is a detail vertical sectional view

on an enlarged scale of the bottom of the

tub, the » part of the r operat-

ing ism and the ng means for

the bearing of the tor shaft. ois

to the motor shaft and a driven pulley 11

‘pivot stu

1,866,776

driving connection between the gyrator and

the driving mechanism therefor.

Fig. 6 is a top plan view of the removable

plate at the bottom of the tub, with the

gyrator removed. , ee |

, Referring more particularly to the draw-

ings,the washing machine comprises a tub

1 supported upon and fastened to legs 2 hav-

ing roller casters 3, To the legs 2 is secured

a platform 4 upon which i: supported a

motor 5 bolted to an insulating base piece

6 in turn bolted to the platform 4. ‘The

legs 2 have telescopic sections 7 of tubular

‘form slidable in clamp portions, forming

art of the legs 2, for the purpose of. adjust-

on the height of the wanking machine, the

sections 7 being held in adjusted position by

means of set screws 8. The motor 5 is ¢on-

nected to the driving mechanism by means

of a belt 9 running over a pulley 10 fixed

‘fastened to a cress shaft 12 carrying a worm

screw 13 in mesh with a worm gear 14 keyed ©

to a vertical shaft 15. The gear mechanism

13-14 is suitably housed in a housing 16

bolted to and forming patt of one of the.

supporting legs of the washirig machine.

F tween the motor 5 and the gear mecha-

nism 13-14 extends an aluminum belt guard

‘17 which encases the belt 9 and pulleys 10 9°

and 11, the guard having a flange 18 extend-

ing over the = lap of the belt and the

pulley 10. By-this means accidental contact —

with the driving belt 9 and pulleys 10-and 11

is prevented. The guard hasa hub portion 19 309

by which it is pivotally supported upon a part -

of the shaft 12 between the bearings 20 and

21 formed in the housing 16. To an inter-

mediate part of the guard is fastened a

22 i which is idly and rotat-

me carried a belt tightener roller 23. It

will be noted that this guard is supported

only by the shaft 12 and the roller 23 bear-

ing upon the upper lap of the belt 9, so that

the guard:is capable of an upward and down- . 339

ward swinging movement about the axis of

the shaft 12 as the belt becomes taut or slack. *

The amount of the tautness given the bel€, as

the roller 28 presses against it, is derived

from the combined weight of the guard, with

the parts carried by it, and a tension spring

24 connected between and to the B agro 17

and the plefform 4, the tension of the. spring

addin the weight of the guard to main-

+ ay the roller 28, in tightening contact with

) Me

106

fo parts of the crank and gea 125

ings 28 and ry

Fig..5 is a detailed sectional view of the

og A SET rte cris calpains”

- andt

he a yaa .

ie.

1,866,779" aL 3

ported upon a ledge 35 rigidly bolted to the

-side of the tub 1 and also made fast to the’

top of the tub through a‘bolted bracket 35’.

~ A tube 36 is connected between the members

-8 33 and 29 and houses the shaft 25. The shaft

25 drives a wringer 37 through the’ medium

' of clutches 38, 39 and 40, and: gears 41, 42

and 43, which may be manually and selec-

tively controlled through the handle 44 for

10 causing the operating of the wringer in any

direction ‘desired and in whatever ition

the wringer a be relative to the tub. The

wringer is capable of swinging into different

itions with respect to the tub about the

18 axis of the shaft 25, and to be held in ariy

of its positions by a spring pressed locking

pin 45. cooperative with recesses in the ledge

35. The: details of the mechanism for oper-

ating the wringer do not form part of this

- 20 invention, and-therefore, further description

thereof is deemed unnecessary. .

‘The tub 1 is preferably substantially square

in. horizontal cross-section and is shallow

with respect to its horizontal dimensions

25 It-has a central bottom portion 46, an in-

clined portion 48 and vertical. side walls 49.

It may, however, be of other form than square

«a inclined portion 48 may be omitted.

For the purposes of yew | my in-

2° cention. the ogee or impeller is disclosed

“and described as mounted on the tub for sup-

port. Herein it is shown as projecting. up-.

_ wardly through the bottom of the tub, but it

must evident that all desirable arrange-

_ 3% ments are within the contemplation of this

invention, such, for instance, as the mount-

. ing of the impeller so as to depend into the

liquid from the upper portion of the tub,

thereby bringing about the consequent re-

40 versal in the flow of the fluid through the

tub. Thus, as modified, the-flow will be

radially outwardly and thence downwardly,

and then inwardly and upwardly toward the

center of the.gyrator. In the: present dis-

" 45 closure the bottom 46 of the tub 1 has a cir-

cular opening which is novmally closed by

a plate, 47 bolted to the bottom 46. The

radially extending portion 48 at the bottom

46 inclines upwardly toward the vertical side

60 of walls 49°0f the tub for a purpose here-

after described. The plate 47 supports the

gyrator 51, the packing means for the gyrator

shaft 52 and —_ of-the operating mechanism

_ for the gyrator. :

65 The gyrator is metal, or other suitahle ma-

terial, and is of generally circular form when

viewed in plan. It comprises an annular,

trough-like or dish-shaped portion 54, the

central or inner portion of which merges in

@ a continuous concave ¢urve ‘into a central

— stem portion 53 which tapers up-

wardly and terminates in an upper rounded

end. The outer peripheral edge of the

trough-lke portion 54 extends outwardly and

upwardly in a concave curve 55 which is cop-

tinuous with the dished curve of the por-

tion 54. The gyrator is provided with liquid

impelling means, one form and arrangement

of which is illustrated in the drawings.

~Extending in spaced position radially from »

the centrai stem or dome 53 are a plurality .

of flat, vertically projecting blades, wings

or flanges 56 of the shape shown in Fig. 4 of

the drawings. The projecting surfaces of .

these blades taper or incline inwardly in ay

gencral direction from their outer edges to

the trough-like portion ofthe gyrator. They .

extend om the outer edge - the upwardly

inclined portion 55, across the portion 54,

thereof, and thence upwardly vertically along

the sides of the central upstr nding stem 53

to a point appr ‘mately half way up the

sides thereof. A point tte blades merge *

intotheupperrc .-dendcfthestem. The .

remaining or upper part of the stem is free y

of blades and forms a smooth, continuously

flowing curve at the apex 57.

. These blades 56 are of substantial height

at their outer portions, so as to project well -

into the cleaning fluid. The blades incline »

or eurve downwardly and inwardly toward

the central axis of the agitator, that is, to .

the sides of the stem where they merge into

the stem. As shown in Fig. 4, the blades ex-

tend across the dish-shaped member at the g

lower ends in lobe-shaped form and the up-

per-surfaces of the wings or bl@des extend

considerably above the dish-shaped member

to provide sufficient blade surface to impart

a considerable force or throw td the water in y

the direction outwardly and somewhat varal- —

lel to the axis of rotation of the gyrator, as

hereinbefore described. It isito be noted thaf

-the outer inclined portion 53 of the dish-

shaped member assists in this movement and. y

that this-directional flow is angmented by the

inclined walls 48 of the surrounding trough

or tub. The force imparted to the water ;

is sufficient to cause the water to flow up-

wardly toward the top of the tub as showit'y

in dotted lines, Fig. 1. The.downward flow”

at the upper central portion of the tub pre-

vents the overflow of-suds. In the embodi-

ment shown there are four of. these blades,

but any other number may be used as de- 9

sired. Within the central stem portion 53

.and depending from the apex 57 thereof is

a hollow pyramidal socket 58, preferably

square in horizontal section. It is adapted

to fit ypon a square pyramidal block or step

59 socketed to fit upon the upper end of the

shaft 52 and secured to said shaft, to posi-

tively rotate. therewith, by a cross pin 60 ex-

tending transversely. through the shaft. At

the upper end portion of the step 59 is fgrmed +

an annular groove 61 in’ which reposes ‘a

spring lock ring 62 adapted, when the

gyrator is forceably moved downwardly

upon the step 59, to expand into an annular

groove 63 formed in the apex portion 57 of

7 43

4 : 1,866,770 |

the. gyrator. The ye end 64 of the stantly tends to hold the rack away from the

step 1s squared to fit into a like aperture pinion and against the roller 84, the rack be-

formed into the apex 57. The lower end of ing thrown into mesh with the pinion only

the‘socket may be provided with notches into when the lever 83 and roller 84 are moved —

which the ends of the cross pin 60 may ex- to positively shift the rack into enmeshment.

B tend, if desired. The various gyrator por- The-rotation of the crank 79-80 will cause.

tions, namely, the apex, trough, peripheral, a reciprocation of the rack over the arm 76

blade and pyramidal portions all are prefer- swhether-or not the rack be in engagement

ably integral. While this‘embodiment illus- with the pinion. When the rack is moved

trates the invention, it is to be understood into mesh with the pinion. the later is caused

rf)

that the gyrator may be located at the top to alternately rotate and through the medi- .

of the tub and in depending position from. um of shaft 52 impart such movement to the

‘the top or cover. thereof. gyrator_in the tub. te

The shaft 52 is fixed to a pinion 65 by ‘For the purpose of’ packing the r

means of a key 66, and has bearings 67 and shaft 52 the. plate 47 and the bracket 69

#68 respectively formed in the plate 47 and are provided with communicating chambers

- in a‘bracket 69 bolted to the underside of adapted to hold a packing material 92, pref- -

70 and 71, preferably of brass or bronze. The comminuted asbestos, graphite and oil. The

pinion 65 is in thrust bearing with the ends packing space comprises an annular cham-

Y of the ripe 67 and 68, and clamping ber 93 surrounding the shaft 52 between the

bolts hold the br. B

the pinion 65 has no loose play, yet it is per- packing 94, preferably of leather, in the

mitted to freely rotate or oscillate. The low- opening at the top of the chamber 93 and

er end of the shaft 52 has a grease cup 72 located between.the bottom end 95 of the

S operative to supply a lubricant through.bores step 59 and the packing materia} in the cham-

the plate 47. These bearings have-bushings erably a of chopped or shredded and

acket 69 in place such that bearing 67 and bushing’70, and a washer or _

73, 74 and 75.to the bearing surface ‘between ber 93. The chamber 93 extends ——* ,

the shaft 52 and bushings 70 and 71. The passege 96 to a plunger chamber 97.

bracket has an arm 76 upon which rests and lower portion 98 of the latter has a screw

freely slides reciprocating

to mesh with the drive pinion 65, the other plunger 99 having at its outer end a winged

end or crank arm portion 81 of the rack.be- finger piéce 100 which may be manually ro-

ing pivotally connected to a crank pin 78 tated to feed the ao into the chamber

fixed to crank arms 79 and 80 fastened to the 97 against the packing 92. The packing 92

‘ ends of the shafts 15 and 25. is somewhat plastic and is in a sort of fluidal

The rack 77 may be thrown into or out of state so that the stress applied to. it by the

g rack 77 adapted threaded aperture in which operates a screw,

operative engagement or mesh with the pin- forceful entry of the screw plunger into the

ion 65 at will. This is accomplished by the chamber 97 will cause the packing 92 to ~

mechanism shown in Fig. 3.. Upon the end flow through the passage 96 to the chamber

of the arm 73 is pivotally supported a bell 93 and completely fill the space of the lat-

crank lever 83 carrying at one of its ends a ter. In this way compensation for any loss

roller 84 bearing against the rear.face of of packing owing to wear, leakage and other-

_the rack (7 and being apertured at its other wise is readily made. Leakage of wash wa-

end to receive a bent end of a link 85 run- ter or cleansing fluid from the tub around

ning to a crank arm 86 having .its free end the shaft 52 is prevented by this novel pack-

also apertured to receive the other bent end ——

of the link, the link being thus pivotally he open top of the tub is normally closed

connected to said lever 83 and arm 86. The by a cover 101 having a hinge 102 at one

‘atm is fast to a vertical shaft 87 rotatably side and a finger grip piece 103 at the other

supported in ye 88 and 89 respectively side. ; ; aa

rigidly secured to a leg 2 and the side of the | At one side of the tub is secured a liquid

tub 1 (see Figs. 3 and 1). Tothe upper end soap dispenser comprising a. reservoir 104

of the shaft is fastened a handle 90 by fastened tothe wall 48 by bolts 105 and adapt-

which the lever 83, through the media of ed to contain a relatively large supply of

; link 85, arm 86 and shaft 87 may be forced soap. To this chamber is connected a meas-

against the rack to cause the latter to en-- uring pump 106 into the upper portion of

with the: pinion 65: A spring 91 is which a charge of fluid soap is.drawn by

connected to the end of the rack 77 and a the piston on piston rod.107, and upon a

fixed part of the washer, as a leg 2 there- downward movement of’the piston and rod,

of, for the purpose of automatically dicen- discharged into the tub through a discharge 395

gaging the rack from the pinion and to hold . tube or nozzle 108 so located that the ejected

the:-rack away from the piniort when the charge will be in the general directiqn of

handle 90 is shifted to throw the lever 83 the movement of the mass of material and.

out of operation and thus stop the oscillation cleansing solution within the tub during the

or rotation of the gyrator. The spring con- washing operation. cate

130

When the ganar is alternately rotated or

oscillated, with materials to be cleansed and

the cleansing liquid in the tub, the liquid

is given-a besweny | outward and upward

5 movement toward the upper part of the tub,

then an inward movement, then a downward

movement toward the cone 53 of the gy-

rator, the liquid also pro, ing, 1m, its

whirling action, about the tub first in one di-

-16 rection and then in an opposite direction so

. that the resultant motions are substantially

ratory ones, as helical movements about a

mng having a circular cross-section. In this

way the washing and washable materials are

18 given a turbulent swirling action. As a re-

". sult of this action imparted to the cleansing

liquid by the gyrator, the water in turn im-

parts a similar action to the fabrics. Goods

are thus whipped, whirled and dashed around

20 in the sieving, whirling, turbulent action set

up by the gyrator. us the fabrics are

given a quick, snappy, sieving, whirling, re-

prc ouble action, produced by the gy-

rator, doubling the clothes first one way and

25 then the other until every thread in the fabric

is acted upon an untold number of times,

somewhat like the cracking of a whip-lash in

all directions. While it is very difficult to

describe the action of the water and the move-

#0 ment of the clothes therein produced by the

— reciprocation of the gyrator or im-

peller in the container, whereby the materials

are thoroughly cleansed while held in sus-

pension by the peculiar and novel move-

35 ment and action of the water, I believe that

the foregoing description will easily enable

anyone skilled in the art to readily construct

and opérate my invention and fully utilize

the herein disclosed method. At or before

49 the start of the operation, and during the

— of the machine, as desired; char,

of liquid soap may be ejected into the moving

mass in the tub.

The plate 47 has a drair cx 109 with

_ @ which may be connected a hose normally

supported at its free end at one side of the

machine but which may be lowered to drain

the tub of its ‘contents. The plate 47 is

formed with a shallow depression 110 sur- —

6® rounded by the flange 50 and having an in-

clined bottom 111 extended from one side to

the other of the shaft 52 and chamber 93,

in order to permit efficient drainage of the-

fluids in the tub througli drain port 109. -

55 It is of course understood that the specific

description of structure set forth ahove may

be departed from without departing from

the spirit of my invention as set forth in this

specificat‘on and the appended claims.

60 Having now described my invention, I

claim: ;

1. The method of cleansing fabrics in a

tub consisting in agitating: a washing fluid

in such.a way as to create positively driven

$ violently flowing currents moving away from

44 as a

and back to the plane of the source of agita-

rection in a p

‘with the

tion, and also around the tub in one

tion in a plane approximately parallel with

the plane of agitation, and then causing it to

move away from and back to the plane of

the source of agitation and in a reverse di-

e approximately parallel

tation so as to bodily

and forcibly cause the fabrics in the tub to

travel in su tially the same paths as the »,

fluid, whereby thorough cleansing of the

fabric is effected without substantial contact

with rubbing surfaces. Pune,

_2. A washing machine comprising in com-

bination, a container having a substantially’,

uninterrupted inner surface, a rotary recip-

rocatory disk-like impeller near the bottom

of the container having upstanding flanges

thereon so arr as to violently force

water in the container Jaterally and upward-

ly in one gyratory direction and then later-

ally and upwardly in an'op direction,

whereby the materials being washed: will be

substantially suspended by the water and

thoroughly cleaned while thus suspended, »

and motor-driven means extending through

the bottom of the container to rotatably re-

ciprocate the impeller. he! .

_3. A washing machine comprising in com-

bination, a container having a substantially

uninterrupted inner surface, a rotary reci

roca disk-like impeller mounted adja-

lane of

_cent the bottom of the container, so construct-

ed and a that when water and mate-

rials to be cleaned are placed in the container yw

and the impeller is reciprocated, the water

will first be viplently forced laterally and

upwardly in-one gyratory direction and then

laterally and upwardly in an opposed :

tory direction, so that the materials being

cleaned will be suspended by the movement

of the water, and water forced thro

and around ‘the materials to thoroughly

cleanse-them, while said materials are sub- ~

stantially out of rubbing contact with the iy

mechanical parts of the machine, and motor- _

— means for rapidly driving the im-

peller. | ae.

4. In a washing machine the combination

a tub for containing a cleansing sub- 1

stance-and the materials to be cl , said

tub having an outwardly and upwardly in-

clined portion, an impeller cooperating :with

the said inclined portion of the tub to force

said cleansing substance and materials to be 1s

cleansed outwardly in a direction substan-

tially parallel with said inclined portion, and

power means for oscillating said impeller.

5.” In a washing machine the combination

of a tub adapted to contain wash water and &

goods to be washed, said tub having a flared |.

portion, a liquid.i r in said ‘tub, hav- |

ing a depressed portion, said liquid impeller

cooperating with said flared portion to swirl |

sai wash water and goods with » substan- i

‘tially gyratory movement, and power ‘means

‘to alternately rotate said liquid impeller.

6. In a washing machine comprising driv-

ing power means, the combination of a tub

for containing a cleansing substance and

_materials to be cleansed, a liquid impeller

mechanism driven by said power means for

oscillating said liquid impeller, saii liquid

impeller having ges and a radially de-

said cleansing su ce and materi

‘7. In a washing machine comprising a

driving power s, the combination of a

_tub for containing washing and washable

5 materials, a liquid impeller, means operable

he oy ane hag said li =e ler, =

iquid impeller being provided with upstand-

“ing flanges and a depressed portion on each

side of each of said flanges and operative to

~-swirl said materials with a su tially

gyratory movement. -

8. In a washing machine comprising driv-

ing power means, the combination of a tub

for containing a cleansing substance and ma-

% terials to be cleansed, a liquid impeller,

mechanism driven by said power, means for

alternately rotating said liquid impeller

said liquid impeller having upwardly an

radially extending flanges and a radially

% depressed surface operative to upwardly

swirl said cleansing substance and ma-

terials. - 2

9. In a washing machine comprising driv-

ing power means, the combination of a tub

% adapted to contain -washing and washable

materials, a liquid impeller in said tub and

operated by said means, said liquid Impeller

‘having a centrally raised portion and radial-

ly depressed portion, and operable to swirl

# said materials with « substantially gyratory

movement.

- 10. In a washi ariv-

ing power means, the combination of a tub

' adapted to contain washing and washable

4 materials, a liquid impeller in said tub and

operated by said means, said age gee 8

having a centrally raised portion, a radially

machine havi

dially from said centrally raised portion

# said liquid impeller operable to swirl said

materi with a su tially gyratory

~ movement in said tub.

11.-In a washing machine having driving

_ power méans, the combination of a tub adapt-

& ed to contain washing and washable nia-

ials,-a liquid impeller in said tub and

“operated by said means, said liquid impeller

having a central conodia] portion, an in-

clined peripheral portion and an interme-

i diate trough portion, said liquid’impeller o

erating to swirl said materials with a su

{stantially gyratory movement in said tub.

# 12. In a washing machine comprising

driving = means, the combination of a

tub for holding a cleansing -fluid’ and ‘ma-

1,866,779

pressed portion operative to upwardly swirl .

/tral portion and u

depressed portion and flanges extending ra-

-tions extending from one face t

- by side faces of su

terials to be cl a drain plate at the bot-

tom of said tub and having a sloping bottom

portion extending from one side to ti. > other

of the center of said tub, and an eccentricall

located drainage connection attached to said

inclined portion, a shaft extending through

said plate and a liquid impeller on said shaft

for giving said substance and material: tur-

bulent motion. ks

13. In a washing machine comprising

driving power means, a.tub, an alterna

rn, Fy impéller having a plate form

with an annular depression, a raised cen-

nding flanges in said

depression, said plate, depression, central

portion and flanges — on the contents

of the tub to give the contents a gyratory

movement. ;

14. An agitating member for a washing

machine comprising a cup-shaped disk hav-

ing a frusto-coni

center thereof, the vertical elements of which

are concave so that the surface of'said por-

tion merges into the surface of said disk,

and a round upwardly tapering portion pro-

jecting above said frusto-conical portion and

terminating in a rounded surface, and narrow

radial wings a gg from said latter por-

tion and extending along the sides thereof

and across the surface of said disk and having

rounded outer e merging into the con-

cave surface of said disk. 4

15. An impeller for a washing dchine

comprising an-annular trough, a stem rising

centrally from said trough and having a plu-

rality of circumferentially spaced radial

wings projecting therefrom and extendi

‘long its sides and across the surface of sai

trough, the top surface of said wings above

said trough é¢urving downwardly afd in-

wardly. :

16. A rotatable

‘chine adapted to be

taining receptacle ecmprising a dish-shaped

ianpeller for a washing ma-

_member having a central upstanding tapered

‘stem with a rounded upper

end, ribs extend-

ing across said dish and upwardly along the

portion rising from the.

isposed in a liquid con-

100

106

‘ne

side of said stem and having'rounded upper -

edges morgitig into the rounded surface of

said stem.

17. In a washing machine, a tub for con-

taining wash water and goods to be washed,

an oscillatory disk-like agitator in said tub

near the bottom thereof and having a plu-

rality of upstanding water-impelling ger

» Sai

projections being of substantial height con-

tiguous to the periphery of the agitator and

decreasing-in height toward the center where-

antial area ‘are ided,

and while the agitator is oscillated the water

-and goods will be vigorously forced laterally

upwardly in gyratory paths to violently force

the water aicagh, Lace and porn b the

goods and thordughly cleanse them while 139

PDT

ME ym

Ce A Ge 5 tee Oth eek

| ing of a substantially disk-like imperforate

aye

ye Jections extending

19. In a washing machine, a tub liaving

side walls and a bottom, a driving shaft ex-

tnding Sovose said bottom into the tub,

go 8m agitator fixed to said shaft to osciliate

therewith, power means for oscillating said:

shaft and eitaipr, said agitator comprising

. substantially circular base having an up-

standing central portion, blades extending

- gs upwardly from the upper face of said base,

the blades:being of greatest height adjacent

the marginal edge of the base, decreasing in

— toward the center and merging into

said upstanding central portion, the union

go between the agitator and the shaft permit-

ting removal of the former from the latter

an upward movement, the‘oscillation of

agitator causing the blades to -set- up

violent movements of the fluid and tub con-

gg tents outwardly away from the agitator. up-

wardly, inwardly and then back toward. the

agitator, there also being superposed on this

circulatory movement a movement of the

fluid and tub contents first in one direction

@ circumferentially of the tub and then in the

other, so that the articles being washed will

be thoroughly cleansed without any material

rubbing of the blades thereagainst.

20. In a washing machine, a tub. a driv-

45 ing sheft extending into the tub, an agita-

tor secured to said shaft to oscillate there«

. with, power means for oscillating said shaft

and agitetor. said agitator comprising a sub-

Ge ke oe.

- stantially circular body portion having

60 blades extending therefrom on the face pre-

sented te the material. being washed. the

blades. adjacent the marginal edge of the

body portion being of a substantial: dimen-

sion in.a direction at right angles to the bedy

66 portion, said body portion being free of any

holes or openings of substantial dimensions,

_ said blades and adjacent portions of the body

‘portion of the egitator when the agitator is

oscillated throwing the fluid in the tub, and

60 material being washed. violentiy outwardly

from the edge of thé agitator whereby it will

flow in cireulatory paths away from the azgi-

tator, along the sides of the tub, then in-

wardly and back toward the agitator, this

$5 cycle being continuously repeated.

' 1,866,779

91. In & washing machine, a tub having

,. a substantially uninterrupted irtner surface

and adapted to contain cleansing liquid and

materials to be washed, the bottom of the tub

‘merging smoothly into the sides, an oscil-

latory liquid impeller mounted adjacent the

bottom of the tub. having on its upper sur-

. face upstanding wing-like means of substan-

tial height and length\so. constructed and .

. arranged that when the impeller is given a:

rapid rotary oscillatory movement the cleans-

ing liquid and materials to be washed will

be violently forced laterally from the im- |

peller then upwardly along the side of the

tub, then away from the tub side and dack |

toward the impeller, this cycle being con-

tinuously repeated to force the cleansing liq-

uid through and around the materials to be

washed to thoroughly cleanse them while they

are substantially out of rubbing contact wit

the impeller, and motor-driven means for

imparting to said impeller a rapid rotary os-.

cillatory movement.

22. A washing machine comprising in com-

bination, a tub for containing cleansing liq-

uid and materials tobe cleansed, said tub hav-

ing a

tending wall portion the interior surface of

which is free from rubbing projections, the

juncture of the bottom portion with the up-

wardly extending portion being inclined to

facilitate the movement of currents outward-

ly and upwardly and along the interior sur-

face of the tub. a rotary reciprocatory im-.

ller mounted in the tub adj acent its bottom,

he upper surface area of which is consider-

bottom portion, and an upwardly ex-

100

_ably less than the horizontal cross-sectional -

area of the tub through its upwardly extend-

ing portion, the margin of said impeller be-

ing spaced a substantial distance away from

the upwardly extending portion of the tub,

a rotary reciprocatory drive shaft extending

upwardly. through the bottom of the tub into

. the interior thereof, the impeller being mount- -

ed upon‘said shaft for movement theretvith

110

in.a fixed plane, said impeller having on its .

upper surface a plurality of upstanding —

wing-like hlades, each of which is of substan-

tial height and length, and provided with

lateral impelling faces of substantial area,

the impeller and tub being so constructed and

arranged relative to each other as to cooper- .

ate while the impeller is reciprocated for

whipping the finid and violentlv forcing it

first in one and then in an oppositely upward

circulatory direction against the interior of

the tub and through and around the materials

«being washed. and substantially suspending

the materials in the fluid by the moving fluid.

and means for imparting a rapid rotarv re-

eiprocatory motion to the said shaft and im-

peller. -

23. A washing machine comprising in com-.

bination, a tub for containing cleansing liq-*

uid and materials to be cleansed, said tub hav-

4 47

ing a bottoin portion and an upwardly ex-

. tending wall portion, the interior surface of

tub adjacent its bottom, having a and

a plurality of blades, each of which i8 of sub-

stantial height and lateral area, and a cen-

tral portion projecting upwardly from the

base, the upper surface area of the base being

considerably less than the horizontal cross-

sectional area of the tub through its upward-

ly extending portion, the margin of said base

’ being: spaced a substantial distance away

from the upwardly extending — of the

‘yg tub, said tub and impeller being so con-

structed and positioned relative to each other

that when the impeller is rapidly recipro-

cated each blade and its adjacent portion of

the impeller base will simultaneously drive

the cleansing fluid in one and then an opposite

outward upward circulatory direction to-

ward.and around the clothes, and- act in co-

violently flowing opposed currents of liquid

es to meet and flow inwardly and downwardly

toward the central portion of the tub, and

substantially suspend the materials in the

fluid while being washed,.a rotary near

ing drive shaft extending upwardly through

a fixed plane, and power means for rapidly

reciprocating the shaft and impeller for the

purposes set forth:

36 24. Ina washing machine. a tub adapted to

contain/a washing fluid and’ materials to be

shaft extending through the bottom of the

. , tub. at the center thereof, a liquid impeller

--4 Mounted on said shaft near the bottom of the

tub, the outer portion of the impeller being

spaced a considerable distance from the in-

terior side surface of the tub and rotatively

reeiprocatory with the shaft, said impeller

45 comprising a base, a central ion project-

ing upwardly therefrom and a plurality of

the base and equally spaced: and extended

radially from the central portion, each blade

to the edge of the base than at the center

thereof. and ‘means for imparting rotary re-

ciprocatory motion to said shaft and the im:

peller mounted thereon. the impeller and the

tioned as to'cooperate while the impeller is re-

ciprocated to cause the liquid to be violently

forced laterally and upwardly against and in

_one direction, cireumferentially around the

inner surface of the tub, and laterally and

_jupwardly against and in an opposite direc-

_ jtion, circumferentially around the inner sur-

4 face of the tub whereby the materials will be

thoroughly cleansed.while substantially sus-

pended in the water.

__ which is free from rubbing projections, a ro- -

tary reciprocatory impeller mounted in the’

operation with the interior of the tub to cause.

ao the bottom of the tub into the interior thereof.

for oe the impeller for movement in:

cleansed, a rotatively reciprocatory driving

uniform blades projecting upwardly’ from:

so being of greater area at a position contiguous

85 tub being so constructed and relatively posi-—

BE Ot a

1,866,770 es se

25. A washing machine comprising in com-

bination, a tub, said tub having a main body

— the interior of which is substantially

reo of scrubbing projections, and a bottom

portion, a yotary reciprocetory liquid im-

Her mounted for operation in a fixed plane

in the tub, the outer portion of which is spaced

a considerable distance from the body por-

tion of ‘the tub and having‘a plurality of

blades projecting therefrom, said tub and im- 1%

peller being so constructed. and positioned +

relative to each other that when the impeller —

is rapidly reciprocated each blade and its

adjacent portion of the impeller base will si-

multaneously ‘drive the cleansing fluid in one

and then an opposite dutward circulatory di-

rection away from the plane of the impeller

through and around the clothes, and act in

cooperation with the interior of the: tub. to

causé violently opposed currents of fluid to

meet and flow inwardly and in a general ver-

tical direction toward the impeller, whereby

the materials are substantia y ed in’

the fluid‘ and cleansed while thus suspended,

a driving shaft extending into the tub on

which the impeller is mounted for movement

therewith, and power means for rapidly re-

ciprocating the shaft and impeller.

In a washing machine for cleansin

fabrics. by forcing cleansing fluid throug

them while substantially suspended by the

action of the fluid, as distinguished from

wpe or pushing the fabrics through the

LN)

‘fluid or against scrubbing surfaces, or other- .

wise scrubbing them by mechanical means,

a tub, a substantially imperforate rotary re-

ciprocatory impeller mounted to operate in

a fixed plane having blades of substantial —

height and area projecting therefrom in a

direction toward the fabrics while they are

being cleansed, said tub and impeller being

so constructed and arranged as to cooperate

while the impeller is in operation for whip-

ping the fluid and violently forcing it out-

wardly. upwardly and .in a gerieral vertical 110

and-circtilatory movernent and circumferen-

tially of the tub first in one and then in an

opposite direction and through and around

the materials, and substantially suspending

the materials in the fluid while being washed,

and power means for rapidly reciprocating

the impeller. - ;

27. A washing machine comprising in com-

bination. a tub having an inner surface free

from rubbing projections, said tub having a

vertical portion and a bottom portion in-

clined outwardly and upwardly toward and

merging with the vertical portion, an imper-

forate rotary reciproc*tory impeller mounted

for operation in a fixed plane near the bottom

of the tub,-the outer portion of which is ‘

spaced a considerable distance from the in-

terior of the vertical portion of the tub, said

impeller comprising a base of substantial

area, & plural ty of uniform radially dis-

100

105

115

a dee meen cea

' - for imparting to said

1,866,770

posed and equal! aoeet blades

wedi at su ially right :

r) ‘each blade being of su tial

height and lateral area, and a central por-

g tion projecting upwardly from the base, a

driving shaft extending through the bottom

of the tub on which the impeller is mounted

. for movement therewith, and means mounted

beneath the tub ‘for imparting to the shaft

and impeller a rapid rotary reciprocatory

motion. _

28. In a washing machine, a tub having

a substantially smooth inner surface free

from rubbing projections

; tain cleansing liquid and materials to be

cleansed, said ‘tub having a vertical portion

and # portion inclined downwardly and in-

wardly from the vertical portion and merg-

ing therewith, an imperforate rotary recipro-

catory impeller mounted near-the Botte

the tub, the outer portion of which is spaced

a considerable distance from the interior of

the vertical portion of the tub, comprising a

base of substantial area and a plurality of

uniform equally spaced: ially

‘blades projecting upwardly | the base,

each blade being of substantial height and

.’ lateral area at its outer end and decreasin

in its lateral area toward its inner end, an

a central pdrtion projecting upwardly from

the base into which the inner end of each

of said blades merges, a driving shaft extend-

ing thro the bottom of the tub on which

' the impeller is mounted for-movement there-

with,:and means mounted beneath the tub

aft and impeller s

rocatory motion. a

machine, a tub os Are

to contain cleansing liquid and materials to

be cleansed, a rotary reciprocatory impeller

mounted adjacent the bottom of the tub, com-

rapid rotary reci

4%" ‘a

prising a substantially imperforate base of.

. substantial area and blades of substantial

height and lateral ar¢a projecting from. the

of the impeller toward the materials

whi being washed¢said impeller and tub

being so constructed and arranged that they

will cooperate, when the im r is rapidly

a to cause the liquid, to be -

ti reed penenee b upwardly and cir-

tially ajong the interior of the tub

oneal direction, and then outward-

ly, upwardly and circumferentially ans the

tub in the opposite anny direction, where-

by the materials being

the in direction of movement

being accomplished suddenly

i ——— the liquid and vigorous-

ly force it a — von

the opposite through and aroun

the materials while substanti “| ded

therein by the action of the liquid, and power

means for ra reciprocating the impeller.

.80. In a washing machine, a tub having

* its bottom merging smoothly into its side por-

Vt poem a oe ~ . /

val i :

pion

adapted to con-:

m of

disposed

- of the fluids as distinguished from pulling or -

washed wi'l be

said impeller on an imperforate

tion to facilitate the movement of laterally

upward circulatory currents, and having the

interior of its’ ode portion substantially

smooth and free from rubbing elements, for .

containing a cleansing fluid and materials %

to be cleansed,.a rotary reciprocatory im-

peller mounted near the bottom of the tub,

said tub and impeller. being so constructed

and arranged as to act in cooperation while

the impeller is in operation, for whipping %

the fluid and violently forcing it first in one -

and then in an opposite laterally upward cir-

culatory general direction against the inte-

rior of the tub and through and around the

materials, and suspending the materials mthe %

fluid by the moving fluid while being washed,

said impeller ee a a substantially im-

rforate base and blades of substantial

eight. and area projecting upwardly there-

from, and motor driven means extending %

through the bottom of the tub for imparting .

to the impeller a rapid rotary reciprocatory

motion, substantially as described.

31. In a washing machine, a-tub having

a substantially smooth interior free from

rubbing elements for containing a cleansing

fluid and materials to be cleansed, a rotary

reciprocatory impeller'‘mounted near the bot-

tom of the tub, said tub and impeller being

so constructed and arranged as to cooperate %

while the impeller is operated for violently

forcing the fluid first in one and then in an

opposite outwardly and upwardly circula-

tory general direction against the interior

of the tub and through and around the ma- 10

terials, and substantially suspending the.ma-

terials in the fluid while being washed, said

impeller comprising a substantially imper-

forate base and blades of substantial height

and area projecting upwardly therefrom, and

motor driven means penser Sug tg h the

bottom of the tub for imparting to-the im-

peller a rapid rotary reciprocatory motion.

32. Ina washingmachine for cleansing fab-

rics by forcing cleansing fluids through them

while substantially nded by the action

3 zs

hEbase ys O m0 PS org fo oOo st Ff

> oa -e e-2 ol eee oe oo eee a oe eo. eo ee a. es te

sarebbing surfaces or otherwise scrubbing

them. by mechanical means, a tub, a rotary

reciprocatory impeller mounted for normal

operation in a fixed plane, said tub and im-

peller being so constructed and arranged to

cooperate while the impeller is in operation -

for whipping the flujd and violently forcing

it first in one and then in an opposite out-

wafd, axial and circulatory general direction

against and yo ae emed arallel to the in-

terior of the tub arfd through and around the

materials and substantially suspending the 7

materials in the fluid while being washed

and blades of su tial height and ares

projecting therefrom in a direction toward

the materials being. cleansed, and power?

oat 7 ; Lae

eans for rapidly reciprocating the impeller.

83. In a wahing machine, a tub sabetnn

ally free from aay > | projections for

intaining a cleansing fluid and materials to

» cleansed, a rotary reciprocatory impeller

jounted near the of the tub, said im-

eller comprising an imperforate ‘base and

lades of substantial height and area pro-

cting upwardly a said tub and

npeller being so const acted and arranged

3 to act in cooperation while the impeller is

perated for wHipping the flaid and violently ~

orcing it first in one and then in an opposite:

utwardly upwardly circula neral di-

ction, against the interior of the tub and

yward: and a the materials, and sub-

antially suspending the ‘materials in the

aid while being washed, and power means °

or rapid! iprocating the impeller.

$4. in & Sashing machin a tub whose

terior is free from substantial scrubbing ele-

ents adapted to contain a cleansing fluid

nd materials to be cleansed, a driving shaft.

ctending into the tub through the m

vereof, an impeller on said shaft-to oscillate

verewith, power means for oscillating said

1aft and impeller, the impeller comprising

n imperforate body portion, and blades ex-

nding from said body portion on the face

resented to the materials being cloansed, the

lades being of a substantial dimension in 8

irection at right angles to the body portion,

id tub, blades and adjacent portions of the

ody portion of the impeller being so con-.,

ructed and arranged in the tub relative to.

s interior that when the impeller is oscil-

ted the fluid in the tub will be thrown vio-

ntly outward against and around the in-

rior of the tub, from the edge of the im-

eller, first in one and then in the’ opposite

eneral direction, whereby the fluid will be

riven in circulatory s away from the

npeller, along the sides‘ of the tub in op-

osed directions, then inwardly and toward

he impeller, this cycle being continuously

speated while the materials are substantially

aspended by the fluid and out of substantial

rubbir * contact with the impeller or tub.

35. A washing machine comprising in com-

ination,atub forcontaining waterjand goods

) be — said tub being substantially free

rom rubbing projections, a recipro-

story impeller in the tub ha ‘ing henge ies

eans extendin

eight and lateral area, said tub and impeller,

gether with its flange-like means, 80

structed, proportioned and a with

to each other that while the impeller

in operation the fluid will be rigorousl

loved about in devious paths within the tub,

nd the resultant general direction of the

ovement of the cleansing fluid and the ma-

rials to be cleansed is normally radially out-

ard from the central portion of the tub, then

tically, and a general rotary progression

‘by.the action of the fluid, and

‘and continuously driven about in the flui

ing a substantially im .

.pulling fabrics through the fluid

about the inside of the tub first in one and

then an a epeoets direction, and then inward-

toward the impeller the fabrics

be cleansed while anger ee, fey ee

ill be freel

will.

by the mov:

ner, and in devious paths, and motor driven .

means for rapidly reciprocating the impeller

for the pu torte. .

, a tub free of

86. In a washin; i

scrubbing elements for containing a cleansing

an imper-

fluid materials to be c

er, blades

paths within the tub, and the resultant gen-

eral direction of the movement of the cleans-

ing. fluid is normally radially outward from

Sr ee ee

and ina rotary progression about

inside 0 the tub, Srat ia one and thea in an

and in devious paths, and power means for

importing reciprocations to the impeller: —

‘ machine, a tub for con-

taining fluid and materials to be c! — “

rotary reci impeller moun’ r

oscillation a a subs telly fixed plane hav-

orate base and a

plurality of blad

ing so constru and positio relative

to each other that when thé impeller is rapid-

ly reciprocated each blade and its adjacent

. portion of the impeller base will simultane-

ously drive the cleansing fluid in one and then

an opposite outward, upward, circulatory

direction and act in cooperation with the in-

terior of the tub to cause vivlently opposed

currents of fluid to meet and flow inw

and downwardly toward the central portion

of the tub and substantiaily suspend the ma-

terials in the fluid.while being w “and

power means for rapidly reciprocating the

110

y°

88. The method of washing fabrics by -

forcing cleansing liquid through and around

them while substantially suspended by the

action of the fluid, as distingui from

scrub-

scrubbing corrugations, or otherwise

bing them by mecharical means, comprising

immersing the fabrics in a washing fluid in

a container, then vi y and rapidly im.

gorousl

the washing fluid in one and then in: -

ite outward circulatory direction

the plane of the source of impul-

an op

away

CoP Dad PONE EE EPR TNE Ret RE (teen

180

», * method fabrics by

substantially suspended by the f the

Guid, as dicinguched from. pulling febrice

-through the fluid against COrmt:

ue ee, ot otherwise scrubbing the by

"fabrics ina washing lad in «container then

7 5

cee

8% BE

aig’

lets

Ges

rts

DISCLAIMER

“. 1,866,779.— Howard F. meee, ewtee, Towa. Wasxine Macuine. . Patent dated

July 12, 1932. aimer filed February 23, 1937, by the assignee, The

: . Maytag Company. : :

= Hereby enters ite disclaimer of claims 1 and 38 of said Letters Patent.

: : ; [Oficial Gazette April 6,1987.])

ae Cue ne aan "COMPARATIVE DRAWINGS SHOWING PLAINTIFF'S AND DEFENDANT'S

PLATE 1. : PLATE 2. . ; PLATE 3.

i . Snyder, Patented Washing Machine. | , ' Sectional View. of Plaintiff’ 8 Exhibit 10. “Sectional View of Plaintiff 's Exhibit 3a.

Wig. 1 of Snyder Patent No. 1,866,779, July 12, 1932, |

- «Filed June 14, 1922, Mavtas Snyder Gyrator Type Washing’ Machine.

This abe shows 'Plaintiff’s Exhibit 9, Maytag Gunster

_. . type — ‘sold in February, 1922

Se ae

Secti

| " Maytag Snyder denen Type Washing Machine. Defé

Square Tub. Round Tub. one Washt

| i «AS

wt? | er i

(a oF | ‘ . >

1» a % g,'.%

hee , ‘ | » : : —1 Ven

‘ , it oF. ~b-e- Hip, 4

: : i. : oe rs lO? ~~.

im & “i 0s -

meee rf |

. 26 ° ; Mi ia

i" on ™ ' 104 4

28 ¢ oe a

. en vs tales) : i||=

rig wr SET a ‘|

ii J " ar a * it .

F 2. * ' ; —_

oS l —- ah

> hae a r .

AP at

PLAINTIFF'S AND DEFENDANT'S MACHINES ARE ALIKE IN ALL IMPORTANT FEATURES OF 00?

eget | es Gre | | |. ARRANGEMENT OF PARTS AS SHOWN IN THESE DRAWINGS. _—C

pape eee es . : ADMITTEDLY THEY ALL OPERATE THE SAME WAY AND SECURE THE SAME RESULT

—20e-ge >

* a e+ ») Ly Ay LL ae ae ee 2 oleae thn me eden an ke he an ee m2

Pi has 7 - =

rrr cea, Te a OO eae ae

DANT’S MACHINES.

¢ oo ee;

5 Sectional View of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4.

Defendant’s ‘‘THOR’’ Gyrator Type

‘Washing Machine Charged to Infringe.

at | I

OF CONSTRUCTION,

RESULT.

0 a ne smn. VAI SSeS ns Pt tena MSC Bar ae ei cia aici aa NPs

PLATE 5,

Sectional View of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3.

Defendant’s ‘‘Easy’’ Gyrator-Type Washing

Machine Charged to Infringe.

-_ _

2.7

56 SE i

| 56

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.