# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Maytag Co. v. Hurley MacHine Co. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386401_0169%3A08 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1939 - **Citation:** 307 U.S. 243 ## Text ¥? 4 ADA S7hy ae 4) m) a nh f a a UDO abs ine Tiny eS i So oe 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 ‘ 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 : 3 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 ad co ‘ | a ee ee : rs 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. ~ 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. 7 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 & 10 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. 12 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 mt .*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,’ = 4 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 ‘. Tee 7 . ‘ . ‘ . uv ARERR MA NMR Br on sir " " ° . re ~ 27 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 | 28 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 29 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 60 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 31 Ly 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 . 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- vo 7 100 106 ~ ‘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 ed 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 46 7 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 14 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 10 .’ 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 - e 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 pushing fabrics through fluids or inst © 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 Oi ly ‘by.the action of the fluid, and ‘and continuously driven about in the flui ts thereof in a turbulent man- © ing a substantially im . therefrom of substantial © .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: 10 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: — na ‘ 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 TD 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- P 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 ! i ae 7 5 at cee & & it i i 8% BE aig’ lets Ges rts He i ut 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386401_0169%3A08. Public record. Not legal advice.