Appendix for Appellant — Parks-Cramer Co. v. American Monorail Co. (No. 533)
Supreme Court brief1957
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUTT.
>a
_~" -PARKS-CRAMER COMPANY,
. Plaintif-Appellee. oe
Cin. AcrioN No. 1072. Tees
’ AppeaL. From tHe Unrrep SratTEs Distarcr Courr
Fon tux Wesrean Drerarct or Nowra Canouia.
a _ APPENDIX OF APPELLANT.
Crate, Rawouesan & Kamar, ate = Z |
. $7 607-613 Law :
ti Charlotte 2, sey
"ae: Ano Det Ari
| Tantarenno, Gamma, Paiucan & Por,
400 Law
Charlotte 2, North Carolina, ek. a
" Heanp, Sucrrn, Porven & Gairricx,
41 Tremont Street, , es nt Ge
Boston 8, Massachusetts, es Arenee ac
Attorneys Plaintif-Appellee.
TABLE OF CONTENTS. =
‘> Complaint (Dec. 28, 1954) | la
Answer to Complaint (Mar. 11,1955) . .— ., 2a
- Notice Under Title 35, Section 282 (Jan. 4, 1956)" 6a
DEFENDANT'S DEPOSITIONS.
ibepedition of G. B. Holtzclaw (Defendant s Exhibit 6?
We cbs cecnerhigea ia gears ERAS CS ee Ta
Deposition of Robert H. ‘Brown (Defendant s Exhibit |
VU) aes a Sa ee woo -s--=---5 nia tara biti ona ae eT 16a
ap TRANSCRIPT OF pen.”
| Appeasennes ede sine nen chan eaetel ca one 22a
| ‘PLADEs WITNESSES. a
& | ee _ Direct Cross Direct
William B. Grainger == 23a «28a = 30a
Roy 4. Tedd... Rt cet
Lester IE Sarin wigciacnnwrnrinin at. Of Oe
A Oth a
r DEFENDANT'S WITNESSES.
E. Forrest REI oe SOE Seon Sta 0= .-. ° 38a
Robert S. Sessions edited toi a eae nk
10.
11.
- Flexible Sleeve Cleaner Which Was Installed —
‘in Fayetteville iodicnahd acalaiminle deeds aie taatadei aaa
12. Holtzclaw Patent in Suit No. 2,524,797 _-.___
19.
20.
24.
29.
31.
32.
33:
34.
A.
M.
- ""_‘ PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBITS.
Photo’of American Monorail’s Flexible Sleeve
Cleaner Which Was Installed in Fayetteville _-
Photo of Another View of American Monorail’s
American Monorail’s Ad of Cleaner Charged
to Infringe Patent in Suit ____.___.--_--__- =
Photo of American Monorail’s Flexible Sleeve
‘Cleaner Installed in Trenjen Cotton Mills ____ -
Hodge. Patent No. 2, 047, FE ain ome came
Smith Patent No. 1,920, 768 SAD LE TOE!
Stipulation Dated February 9, 1956 _..______ |
Stipulation Dated August 31, DE icnceasinacationpneds
Defendant’ s Interrogatories, September 15, :
EPR nq nec icmenmccsngm enn medenh wines
Interrogatory Exhibit No. 1-..___.________--
Interrogatory Exhibit No. 2__.___.______»__
Interrogatory Exhibit No. 4. $ ao -~=--------- _
Plaintiff's Answers to Interrogatories: Septem-
ber 26, 1955 ___ awe ep eee qn en neneaaemed
DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS.
Hodge Patent No. 2,184,880 _____ econpealiacen
(In Part): Smith Patent No. 1,857,410 _.--._- 1
_ Memorandum Decision (Jan. 7, _— encientiesone
—— (Jan. 18, } 1957). ee ea ee ae
~~
cmynen, ; ; | 7 ; la
Civ. ines No. 1072. |
he the- United States District Court:
’ Bow THE Westen District OF Nortk CAROLINA.
| PARKS-CRAMER COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
Vv.
THE AMERICAN MONORAIL COMPANY, |
Defendant. sey ce rae
7 de ae COMPLAINT.
Piled December 28, 1954.)
1, This action arises under the patent laws of the ~
United States, Title 35 US. Code.
__ 2: The plaintiff Parks-Cramer Company i is a corpora-
tion chartered under the laws of the state of Massachu-
setts, is domesticated in the state of North Carolina and
‘Maintains a principal place of business in the city of
. Charlotte in the Western District of North Carolina. The
defendant The American MonoRail Company i is a corpora-
tion chartered under the laws of the. state of Ohio, is
\ domesticated in the state of North Carolina, with a desig-
‘nated process agent-in said state, atid maintains a regular
and established place of business at 150614 Central Avenue
in the city of Charlotte in the. Western District of North
Carolina, and has committed infringing acts within said.
. District.
3. On October 10, 1950 » Urlited States Litters Paten:
No. 2, 924,797 were duly and legally issued.to Grover B.
Holtzclaw for an invention entitled TRavELING CLEANER
ror TEXTILE MACHINES OR THE Like, which Letters Patent
have been assigned. to the plaintiff Parks-Cramer Com-
_ pany, and which, since said time, have been and still are
owned by said plaintiff.
2a : P ~ Anewer.to Complaint }
«4. Tie dofendent has jndcinged ond otill is intiringine ,
Claim 6 of said Letters Patent by making, selling or using
TRAVELING CLEANER For TextTrLe MACHINES OR THE Lsxs
embodying the patented invention or by inducing such .
infringement of said Letters Patent, and will continue to _
do so unless enjoined by this Court.
‘ 5. The plaintiff has placed the required statutory
~notice on all TRAVELING CLEANERS ror TEXTILE MACHINES
or ‘tHe Lixe manufactured and suld by it-under said Let-
ters Patent,No. 2, 524,797. :
WHEREFORE plaintiff demands a siellanininy and final |
_ injunction against further infringement by defendant and
' those controlled by the defendant, an accounting for .
profits and damages and an assessment of costs ieee the” ;
defendant. | .
Panns-Caamns Company,
By JOSEPH W. Grier, Jr.,.
a S Attorney for Plaintiff.
December 28, 1954.
TALIAFERRO, Grier, PARKER & Por,
Hearp, SMITH, Porter & CuirtTick,
Of. Counsel. | | .
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT. .
_ (Filed March 11,°1955.)
pee putin the defendant, The American Monorail
Company, and for its Answer to the Complaint in the
above-entitled action says: . bs
1. Defendant admits the atagntions of paragraph . 1
of. the Complaint.
2. Answering paragraph 2 of the Complaint, deiend- |
ant admits that The American Monorail Company is a
“> corporation oi the State of Ohio with an established place
~ of business in the City of Charlotte in the Western District .
of North Carolina with a ee. agent .to receive
Anaege to Complaint ’ . »' —_ Se
process in North Carolina. Defendant j without knowl-
edge of plaintiff's residence dr charter and therefore leaves -
plaintiff to its proof. —
Defendant denies that it hes committed infringing
_ acts in the Western District of North Carolina or elsewhere
in the United States and denies all other allegations of
said paragraph 2 not specifically admitted.
er Answering paragraph 3 of the Complaint, defend-
ant admits that United.States Letters Patent No.. 2,524,797
issued to G. B.. Holtzclaw on October 10,, 1950, but denies
that said patént was duly and legally issued and is without
~~ knowledge of said patents assigned to plaintiff end there-
fore leaves plaintiff to its proof.
4, Answering paragraph 4 of the Ciinafanes, defend-
ant denies the allegations’ ntained therein. .
ps Ariswering paragraph °5.of the Complaint, defend-
antis without knowledge of the allegations contained,
therein and leaves plaintiff to its proof.
: —§ Defendant denies that the plairitiff i is entitled | to ‘the
| relief set forth in its prayer or for any relief. ~
_ 1. Further answering, defendant says, on ‘informdiion
and belief, that because of the state of the art prior to the
date of the alleged invention by~said patentee or more
_. than one year before the filing of the application for said
Letters Patent, plaintiff cannot now seek to obtain a con-.
struction of claim 6 of said Letters Patent No. 2,524,797
sufficiently broad to cover anything manufactured, caused
tc be manufactured, sold, installed, and offered, for sale _
and installation, by defendant.
_ §&. Further affSwering, defendant says that said Let-
_ ters Patent No. 2,524,797 is invalid my void for the foliow-
. ing reasons:
( A) Because prior to the alleged invention or dis-
covery of thealleged improvements in said Letters Patent
_ described and rting to be patented, or more than one
- year prior to si application for said‘ Letters Patent, the |
— improvements, or all mere: and substantial part
o : . oe Answet to Complaint
gn prin Ceanieh Veil iin, gummi We annie. ‘0
following patents and printed publications: _
%
- Unrrep STATES PATENTS
; Number
Patentee Issued Z
57,008 W.H. Stone - Aug. 7, 1866.
386,153 - LF. Moeller July 17, 1888
490,269 A. Chisholm Jan. 24, 1893
553,291 H.Nicholsburg . _ Jan. 21, 1896 -
566,853. L.T. Foreman — Sept. 1, 1896 .
752,598 G. M. Schwend Feb. 16, 1904
1,158,079 W.F.Saunders - Oct. 26, 1915
1,169,990 - A.J.Neafie —- “Feb. ‘1, 1916
1,326,140 R. Robinson Dec. 23, 1919
1,486,163° F. Smelik. Mar. 11, 1924
"1,781,142 W. B. Walker <Nov. 11, 1930
1,791,640 | _B.E.Rodin— SS Feb. 10, 1931 -
“1,920,768 W. J. Smith "Aug. 1, 1933
2,047,558 * W. B. Hodge » July 14, 1936 .
2,068,496 L. Linghammar Jan. 19, 1937.
2,108,759. G. W. Turman Feb. 15, 1938
2,137,917 J. B. Lintern ‘ Nov. 22, 1938.
- 2,141,916 T. A. Johnson —. Dee. 27, 1938
2,309,362 G. Trautvetter Jan. 26, 1943
(B). Because the applicant for said Letters Patent
_ was not the original or first inventor and discoverer of the
alleged invention purporting to be patented therein but | |
the same or all material and substantial part or. parts
_ thereofhad previously been devised by others; to wit:
The several. patentees of the United States Letters Patents .
listed in Sub-section (A) hereof, and by others not now
- fully known to defendant, but whose names. defendant
_ pray$ leave to add to this answer, when found.
(C) Because prior to the alleged sian or dis-
.- covery by the- applicant of the alleged improvements in
said Letters Patent No. 2,524,797 described and purport- ‘
ing to be patented, said aileged improvements of all
_ material. and substantial part or parts thereof, had been |
known to and used by others in the United States, to wit: .
Answer to Complaint : “ : . 5a
_ By the several patentees of the United States Patents listed
in Sub-section (A) hereof,-whose places of residence are
named in the respective patents, and who had such knowl-
edge and use at their respective places of residence; and —
by others not fully known to defendant, but whose names
defendant prays leave to add to this answer when found.
(D) Because for more than one-year prior to the
filing of the application for said Letters Patent the alleged /
invention had been in public.use and on sale in this coun-: -
- try by the persons referred to in Sub-section (C) hefeof.
(E) Because in view of the state of the art prior to
the alleged invention by said patentee, ‘as shown by the
prior patents and prior knowledge’ and use by. others, .all
as hereinabove in this answer set forth, as well as by other
_ devices commonly known to and used by the public, no ~
_” exercise of invention was involved injthe alleged improve-
ments purporting to be patented by said ‘Letters Patent, ,
but the same involved — the te skill of those
skilled in the art.
2,524,797 fails to particularly point out and distinctly
7 claim the part, improvement or combination of the alleged
_ invention or discovery as required by Section 112 of the
‘ Patent Recodification Act, ‘Title-35 U. S. C. A. 112.:
_ Wiererore, defendant denies that plaintiff is entitled .
to the relief prayed for in the Complaint, or to any relief, .
and defendant prays that the Complaint be dismissed and®
that it have reasonable costs and disbursements in this
" cause sustained and that it be awarded reasonable attor-
Just. , 8
“ <<“ h D. Warts,
een Ge H. F. ScHNEIDER; -
3 Attorneys. for Defendant.
LH. B. Campsett, Eso.
‘CAMPBELL, CRAIGHILL, RENDLEMAN & KENNEDY,
-Ricuey, Watts, ‘Epcerton & McNEnny,
Attorneys for Defendant.
:
‘). (BF) Because claim 6 of said re Patent No.
*\ney’ s fees and such other relief ‘as to the Court may seem,
_.) | me Notice under Title 35 Section 22»
| NOTICE UNDER TITLE 35 SECTION 282. |
. {Filed January 4, 1956. Z
To: Gedric W. Porter, Esq.,
Heard, Smith, Porter . Chittick,
' 41 Tremont Street,
Boston 8, ~ ca
__. —Joseph W. Grier, Jr,’ : |
| _ Taliaferro, Grier, Parker & Poe,
- 400 Law Building, 3
Charlotte 2, North Carolina. |
Please take notice that in accordance with Sinisa:
_ 282 of Title 35 of the United States Code, that at the trial
_of this case the de t, in addition to the patents listed ..
in paragraph ‘8(A) of defendant’s Answer to Complaint ~
_and of the patentees listed in paragraphs 8(B) and 8(C)
_ thereof, will rely upon the following. identified anne and
patentees:
- Patent No. . 3 Pattntee ee Issued
870,766.-.° J. B.Eaton © Nov. 12, 1907
. * 683332 . ~- F.C. Golf Mar. 24, 1908 -
Re. 23,294 W.H. Hopper —— Nov. 21, 1950.
3 : ' .B.D. Warts, —
“Attorney for Defendant.
December 29, 1955 “ are
Gepsittas ot . 1, inadectani= eee eas
DEPOSITION OF G. B HOLTZCLAW.
| (Defendant’s Exhibit V. )
APPEARANCES: - |
Joseru W. Grier, ao: |
TALIAFERRO, GRIER, PARKER & Pos,
400 Law Building,
Charlotte, N.C.,
| Attorneys for Plaintiff.
B. DV Watts, yin
- .* $20 Union Commerce Bldg.,
Fall _ Cleveland, Ohio,
‘Attorney for Siateniiind..
:
. These depositions are being taken on behalf of died
ant under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, especially
Rule 46-b which has to do with adverse witnesses. These
depositions are being taken upon-oral examination of ‘the fe
party plaintiff by two of its employees who are produced
here in thp;place and stead of an officer or director, the
witnesses being Mr. Grover B. Holtzclaw and Mr. Robert \
-H. Brown, pursuant to the annexed. notice, at — eens
designated therein. - _ j .
: a er ee ee
Mr. G. B. Houtzciaw, .Deing first duly sworn, depose ‘
i says: : )
; Direc EXAMINATION BY Mr. WATTS.
Q1. Will you give your full name, age and residence?-
A. -My name ¢s Grover Bascom Holtzclaw, age 64. I live
‘at 1909 Plaza, Charlotte, N. C.
~ Q2. You are now ene by the eal ? A Yes,
sir.
Q3. “_ lone have you been so wtnitenla? A. Thave
been employed since November 12, 1918. |
Q4. What was your education and training? A. I
~ have been a machinist all my life. ever since a small boy.
a ee ae
‘
~~
~~ =: . Deposition of G. B. Holtzclaw
(4) Q7. What has been the nature of your work with ’
the Parks-Cramer Company? A. I went to work in 1918
as a machinist. 1 worked for them as a machinist for about
one year and then I did expérimental jobs in 1918. Did
that for about three years and since - I have been in
research. :
a ee Bie a
@ Q12. I. suppose you are thoroughly hist with |
- various kinds of spinning frame cleaners used all that’
time? A. Yes, sir.
Q13. What was used in 1930? By. cleaning, I am -
referring to removing lint from frames. A: Well, the
‘Parks-Cramer cleaner was developed about that time. The —
Walker cleaner was developed earlier. !
(5) Q14. By Walker cleaner, did you refer to that
shown in Walker patent 1781142? Is that what. you mean
by the Walker cleaner? A. Yes, sir.
‘Defendant’s Exhibit No. 1—-Patent No. (1781142
marked for identification. ane .
’ # .
* * # *. a>,
(6) Defendant's ibit. No. 2—Patent No.
_ 2047558 marked for identification,
. Q2h. Now you say you were thoroughly familiar with
the cleaner of Hodge patent No. 2047558? A. Yes, sir. ~
; Q22. From; what date? A. I don’t remember the
dates. I had nothing to do with the patent end of it. —
i Q23. Your connection was by way of building or ‘test- -
ing? A.- Developing.
Q24: Did you develop this: cleanse? A. Yes, sir: ~.
Q25.. Tell us about that. How did it come about and
what did you do? Was it your idea originally? A. No, not -
the Hodge cleaner.
_ .Q26. What did you deo in connection with it? A. I
developed the cleaner in accordance with Mr. Hodge’ .
idea. )
a You coristruicted this cleaner? A. All the math |
‘Deposition of G. B. Holtzclaw | | fo .
| (7) Q28. Does that patent No. 2 correctly show the |
Hodge cleaner you developed? A. Yeu, 1 think so.
| — Q29. Was that cleaner used commercially? A. Yes,
. ~ Q30. Over what period of time, mecwiinainiy? A.
You mean the cleaner as a whole? It is still being used.
Q31. When did you begin to use it? A. I don’t re-
meniber the exact dates when we began to use it. , ;
Q32. Is it still being used just as is? A. No, not just :
as is. There have been improvements made from time to
time. ©.
Q33. Now that patent. Exhibit No. 2 is referred to in
your patent here in suit No. 2524797. That is correct, isn’t
it? A. That is-right. ° :
Q34. Does your patent No. 2524797 disclose what you: -
_ did'or does it disclose the ideas of some other people? A.
Tt discloses the ideas of what I did.
~~ Q35. Over and above what was present in the Hodge
_ patent’No. 2047558? A. It is applied to the Hodge patent.
(8) Q36. Now the carriage and the housing with the
fan in it in your patent are the same as in the Hodge patent
are they not? A. The hood, fan, etc.,.are the same in the
- Holtzclaw patent as the Hodge patent—the principle used.
Q37. What’s the difference between the two patents?
A. The difference between as I have seen it, is that.the
Holtzclaw patent has a flexible cuff which comes down .
below head room and is not injurious to operators and is’.
formed in a'shape to project:air under the top of the creel
_board and on the. top of the tapers to do cleaning that no
traveling cleaner has heretofore done.
_ _Q38. What was your object in adding those. inwardly
turned cuffs? A. My object is like any research man’s‘job
__ in trying to i improve his product and I knew for somé time _
_ We, or any traveling cleaner people, weren't nes, ‘sur-
faces that weren’t directly in line with air. ©
'. . Q839. How did you determine that fact? By Michie at
the spinning frames? A. That is right. - .
Q40. Anybody could see where lint isanialetid on
a frame couldn’t they? That is the way you discovered it?
A. Yes, by. accumulation .of lint. .
ee Fee aie * Deposition of G. B. Holtzclaw —
s
(8) Q41. You knew also that places’ in direct stream
of air had no accumulation of lint‘on them? Isn’t thata |
_ fact? A. Where portions of the frame were in direct con- ~
- tact with the stream of air, that is right.
_ » Q42. In the machines of the Hodge patent, Exhibit
No, 2, the outlets for the air are cdjustalil are they not?
A. Yes, it was late de adjustable.
Q43. They areighown. being made adjustable in this’
_patent? A. Tos, sir. .
SE ee eee ae
(11) Q58, Do I understand that it is your position '
that with the Hodge cleaner of this patent ‘Exhibit No. 2,
there would be some places between the upper and lower
creel boards which would be ‘out of the direct line of air
from both of these ‘fozzles? A. Yes, in some cases that -
creel board would be out of the direction of airstream.
_ . {Q59. And those places out of the air stream would -
perthit the accumulation of lint? A. That is right.
(12) Q60. That was perfectly obvious to anybody ~
wasn’t it? A. It would be for them to see the ea
tion oflint . :
“- Q61. Since you ‘pieced’ accuniulation of lint on
dther places by directing an.air stream on to. those places,
wouldn’t it be obvious all you had to do to prevent accu-
— of lint between the creel boards was to }
places? A. That is righ€PThat’s what I chai
ps dod& Direct air underneath boards, not i
line with air streams. acne
Q63.° Let’s limit ourselves to these two patents, Hodge
‘No. 2047558 and your patent here in suit. CHow much |
amore space do you think your device cleans on a spinning
frame than the Hodge device would clean? Let’s look at
_ it this way, Mr, Holtzclaw. In the Hodge patent we have
upper and lower creel boards,-Nos. 3 and 4 I ny ‘they
are numbered? (13) A. That is right. :
. Q64. I gather from your patent the ais you were
concerned | with was better cleaning betweeri those two .
if
Deposition of G. B. Holtzclaw See ST ; lla
boards? A. Not necessarily those two boards. The aie
of the frame.
Q65. You warited . better denne between those two
... boards? A. We got better cleaning. :
Q66. Hodge did get some cleaning between those two
boards? A. After a fashion, yes.
Q67: You got more cleaning than he did?” A. Pnsol is
© right.
"Q68. So it is a. matter of degree, You get more ie :
“mg than he did between those two boards? A. Yes, and
other surfaces. |
a ‘‘- . a ....
(14) Q72. Let’s look for a minute at figure No. 2 of
your patent and figure. No. 2 of the Hodge patent No.
2047558. .I think you also said that the. motor, the car-
riage, the , the fan housing and the rigid ducts were the
same in h machines, or substantially the same? A.
Principally the same. do
Q73. The operation is the same, isn’t it? in other
noe the motor turns the fan and blows air out through *
the conduit. The carriage runs along a track? A. Over
the top of a frame; yes, sir.
Q74. The only difference is that you hate put these
flexible cuffs on the outlets from the main rigid conduit 7@ :
A. The difference is the Hodge. cleaner terminates abowe :
- head heights..
Q75. Your rigid parts terminate above head heights?
A. Yes, sir. ©
Q76. Any difference ‘there? A. Principally I would
say not. & *
: Q77. You have added these flexible cuffs. ‘That’ s the
- only difference isn’t it? A. That {8 right.
(15) Q78. When you added these flexible cuffs, did .
that change the operation: of the carriage, or the motor or
the fan? A. No.
- Q79. When you put these flexible hoses on, they
didn’t ‘change the operation of any of the ‘parts in the
Hodge patent? A. No. |
. as If you put your flexible cuffs on ‘the Hodge ap-
12a <a | | gpa of G. B. Holtzclaw
paratus, it would operate. the same as it did before? A. It
' is on the Hodge cleaner.
Q81. In your. patent ane is inion made to the
| flexible cuffs~It says om page 2, column 3, line 37, I'll
read—“The nozzles 18 of the machines are of rigid mate-
rial.” What material did you have in mind when. this
application was filed? A: Well, some flexible material that
— not be injurious to an operator. : |
x Q82. You didn’t name any in here except woven
fabric and I'll read from column 3, line 56—“Preferably
‘ . the sleeve or nozzle 19 comprises a cuff of suitable woven
fabric which desirably is impregnated with suitable mate-.
rial to make it impervious to thé Diast of air passing there-
through.” What impregnating material did you have in .
mind? A, Anything that was flexible and would be per-
fectly safe to pass over the heads of operators.
(16) Q83. You didn’t describe any suitable imprgg-
nating material, did you? A. No, sir.
Q84. Now, how flexible did you intend to niake this _
-cuff? A. Well, the more flexible the better. The ‘more
flexible, the less charice of — as it passes over the
operators’ heads. =
Q85. How is any one going to know from this patent,
what kind of material to use? What to use to
it and how flexible to make it?
Objection. (Mr. Grier)_ This is a matter. for |
argument in Court.
* Q86. What were the limits you place on ‘this material, ”
limits of flexibility? A. -I don’t place any limits of flexibil- &
ity on the material. The more flexibility to allow it to &
hold its shape, the better. -
| Q87. But there is no description in the patent as to
how flexible or rigid the cuff should be? A. I don’t think .
SO. 3
Q88. There is no deucription i in bins as to ies thick
_or thin the cuff material should be? 7
(17) Objection.’ (Mr. Grier) What the patent.
’ discloses is a matter.of record and not for this witness
to — or deny.
oS e
: he Shee SOE ley Sa 13a
= Q89. Did: you have in mind at the time this patent
application was written, any limits to the rigidity or flexi- 7
bility of the cuff? A. Nothing more than for the safety of
the help and to be able to conduct the air down to parts to
be cleaned.
Q90. You mean you hadn’t made any determination
how thick or thin the cuff should be? A. Not in the model.
Not in the first of it, no, sir.
Q91.:Did: you ever determine how thick or thin the
cuff material should be? A. Yes, later we had to go to
thicker material in order to offset the force of our air jets.
. . Q92. Isn’t it true you are still experimenting with the
_ thickness, rigidity and material of the cuff? A. We are
~~ continually trying to improve cleaning with these cuffs. _
- Q93.. Are you still experimenting with cuffs of differ- .
ent thicknesses? A. No.
~ Q94. Are you still experimenting with = of differ-
ent rigidity or flexibility? A. We have recently. .
(18) Q95. Are you still. experimenting with different
materials composing, the cuff? A. You mean different
materials the cuff i is made out of as a whole. I don’ t think
SO. |
Q96. Are you experimenting with different materials
- to use as part of a cuff? A. Yes.
Q97. Do those materials have ‘daything to do with
the rigidity or flexibility of the cuff? A. They have some-_
_ thing to.do with the rigidity, yes;
~ _ Q98. Now, all those things were known to you at the
‘time you filed application? A. ‘Yes. —
* * * * o..*
( 19} Q104:; Let’s look ‘at the drawing. Isn’t it true
the only space you could clean was between the two creel
boards? _A. The one shown in the drawing. That is right.
o. 4 :-@. + +
(22) Q120. In column 3 of your patent, ae 61, 1.
quote—“‘As illustrated in figure 3 the end 25 of the cuff is
. folded around a thin -_ 26 of - material.” What did
a
i .
lé4a : Deposition of G. B. Holtzclaw
you mean by a thin ring? A. That is a rubber ring. It is to
help hold that in shape..
Q121. It says—“A thin ring of rigid material.” You .
say it was intended to be:rubber? A. That’s a wire sewed
around a ring. ~ : |
Q122. How heavy a wire do you intend to use? A. I
don’t remember. =
Q123. You cannot tell from the patent what 2 size wire;
- or whether to use wire?.
(Mr. Grier) He doesn’ : have to answer that.
Q124. Can you point to any place in the patent that
tells one to use wire in that place? |. ;
(Mr. Grier) Hejs not bound to answer that,
- Q124a. There is not such place? -
. i fh ee Se * , |
(24) Q129. What do you regard, Mr. Holtzclaw, as.
the main feature of your invention of the patent here in
suit? I’ll’ask you again. A. You mean the main features
of the flexible cuff. The main feature of the flexible cuff
is it allows you to blow air under surfaces heretofore not -
cleaned by any traveling cleaner and is safe.to the operator.
Q130. The flexible cuff is the entire invention you
thought you made at the time you filed your application? ~
‘ Just what did you think was your invention when you filed »
your application? A. It was-+o-clean parts on a frame that
- heretofore had not been cleaned by any traveling cleaner.
Qi31. That was the desirable thing. You didn’t in-
vent the‘desire. You made something which you thought
- would carry out that desire. What is it you thought of as
being your invention at the time you filed the application?
A. Just what I said before. A cuff made of flexible mate-
rial, not injurious to the helper when it was down in the
head room and would clean portions of a frame that ‘had
not heretofore been cleaned. . *
(25) Q132. It was simply a flexible cuff. Your wRole
~ invention was:tied up in the flexible cuff? A. That'is/right.
ee © @ -@
rvs
‘ poetan 6 R. Holtzclaw - @ | 15a
(26) Q148. At the time you started on your develop
ment work which resulted in the patent here in suit, you
were-familiar with instances where a flexible nozzle was
fastened to the end of.a rigid pipe through which fluids
were passed one way or the other? A. Yes.
| Q144. Give us illustrations of instances where such
’ ‘apparatus was familiar to you. A. You mean where hose is
used to conduct air or water." . |
Q145. That is right, or ‘sand. A. wom can see that at -
home, or anywhere.
* * a *. @
( 28) Q153. What have you done. in eur patent in
suit that is different from the use of a flexible hose on a
rigid conduit as shown in this patent No. 553291? ©
» Objection. (Mr. ee We decline e taf answer.
Q154. Do you know? 2
Objection. (Mr. Grier) Witness has _ testified
what is done. ot |
Q155° You know what-the principle is in your appara-
tus, don’t you? A. Ithink Ido, __
- Q156. It is'the use of a flexible outlet on a rigid pipe’
‘through which air is blown. Does that. summarize it? Is
that the enna of your apparatus? A. "Yes.
7 . * . -e-
(29) Q158. Then as I get your idea, it is that hecories
you have used your apparatus on a spinning frame, it
‘should be patentable? A. If I understand the definition of
a patent, it is something novel and I claim my patent. is
novel in its use which has never been used cr applied toa
‘ textile machine for cleaning.
Q159. Although a rigid pipe with. flexible nozzle out-.
Jet has been used in other places: for that er A.
They maining have. ‘* ;
> + - 6 x
-
i
a eee Deposition of Robert H. Brown
DEPOSITION OF ROBERT H. BROWN.
(Defendant’s Exhibit U.)
Rosert H. Bhown, being first duly .s sworn,
. and says:
bani EXAMINATION BY Mr. Warts.
* are * *
. . (7) Defendant’s Exhibit . No. $—Patent No.
- 201 1770 marked for identification. .
| Q45. Are you familiar with the Hodge patent No. —
2128207? A. In a general-way.
’ _Q46. Do you know whether a ever built
any cleaners as shown on that patent? A. I do not know.
££: Se
(10) Q60. I assume you are familiar with the Miller
& .Becker undetframe cleaner patent of the: American
Monorail Company No. 2516475? . :
- Defendazit’s Exhibit No. 6—Patent No. 2516475 |
marked for identification.
A. I have read it, yes, sir |
Q61: Did you ever see one of the devices? A. Yes, sir.
Q62. When did you see the first one? A. I cannot
say what the date was. :
Q63. Was it this year or last year? A. I would say
several years ago. |
Q64. Could you say whether or not before the date of ~’
_ issuance of the patent? A. I could not say. I would have
to look at my records...
.Q65. Can you say from your recollection oni it
was before or after the issuance of the Holtzclaw patent .
here in suit which was October 10, 1950? A. Sorry, |
cannot say. |
~ Q66. At the time of issuatice of that Miller-Becker
patent, Exhibit No. 6, did the Parks-Cramer: Company
| Deposition of Robert H. Brown 17a
have any underframe dlennes? (11) A. Not that we were .
merchandising.
Q67. At that time—up to that time, you iiet not com-
mercialized the Moore or the Hodge underframe cleaner? |
A. So far as I know we were not marketing any under-
_ frame cleaner. Whether we did ever sell one of the Hodge
=: cleaners I cannot say. | 5
ie 2 es eS
- Qii. You heard the witness Mr. Holtzclaw, te.tify
. this morning as to the commercial use of the Hodge odge pat-.
_ ent No. 2047558? A. Yes, sir. —_
> Q72. He testified tint that hed been in use siace shout |
the date of the patent, perhaps earlier and is still in use? *
A. That is correct. }
(12) Q73. You agree with’ Mr. Holtzclaw: that the
_ Hodge patent showed outlets from -the blower housing
: which could be adjusted to direct the stream of air to differ-
ént places on: the spinning frames? A. Yes, sir. .
-Q74. Is the operation of any of the apparatus of this |
Hodge patent altered in any respect by the addition of the —
“flexible cuff or nozzle shown in the Holtzclaw patent?" A
Yes, any change you make in the outlets does have some
effect.
Q75. Does the presence of those culls alter the opera-
tion of the motot of the Hodge device? A. No, it may re-
_. quire to take a little more or Jess current.
Q76. And the carriage runs the same before and after
the cuffs are added? A. Yes.
Q77. And the housing operates the same? A. I can’t
see that that would /make any. difference. :
. Q8. Now those flexible cuffs would operate just the
same as they do now whether they were attached to the
Hodge metal conduit or the conduits of some other kind?
(13) A. To the extent they would deliver air, but the’
amount and force and direction depends on many factors.
Q79. But air is delivered from the nozzle? A. Yes,
Sir. ' :
Q86. No matter where that air comes from? A. Any
Seen | 5 . "Deposition of Robert H, Brown
air delivered to the aanile would be delivered by the
nozale. | :
2 * ee *
* (14) Qas. Also in your. affidavit you rr" aia da
Walker, Hodge and°Lawrence spinning frame cleaners
were limited in their cleaning effectiveness. Do you agree
with what Mr. Holtzclaw testified to, “namely in the Hodge
apparatus, Exhibit No. 2, the blower did not completely.
a clean all of the space between the two creel boards? —A. =
___agree-with that. . To ee
| ID. Ral ye die ties th Wis totes ht
_ patent in suit that there was somiewhat greater ——s ;
_of that space between those ‘two creel boards? (15) A
Yes, on most frames. It would vary in different frames. —
-- Q90. But it-was a difference in degree? A. In some
‘frames it might be. In certain places you get no cleaning
from the old style and pretty good with the new. So it is: -
a little more than.a question of degree. :
_ _Q91. So far as the showing of the two patents were
concerned, it was a matter of degree? - ‘A. Yes, just a mat-
ter of degree.
Q92. You agree with Mr. Holtzclaw that any ane look- —
- ing at.a spinning frame over which this Hodge blower was
blowing could see whether-or not lint was accumulated?
_ A. If called to his attention:
Q93. A mill man wouldn’t have to have it called to his
attention, would he? A. I am sure F don’t know.’ You'll
have to have him answer that, /- —
Q94. If you were in charge of a spinning frame would
~ you have to have somebody. call your attention to the fact
that lint was accumulating an a certain place on it? A. Not
if it-was objectionable to have the quantity of lint om
that, was there. - ,
. (P6) Q95. There wasn't gthing unobvious. was
there about directing a stream. of air at the place on the
- spinning frame. where you wished not to have lint accumu-
- “late? A. Well, I don’t know the technical meaning of the
word “obvious” so I am not sure I can answer that ques-
tion osmunatly. I better not try. |
3
Deposition of Robert H. Brown - 19a
Q96. If you saw.,lint accumulating on a spinning
frame in certain places and a blower preventing lint from
accumulating on other places, would you want the-judge
to think it would require inventive skill to see that you
‘could dislodge that accumulated lint if you direct air. _
stream at it? A. I don’t believe I would be interested in
what the judge thought: . | ea
Q97. Well—A. 1] ‘t want to be uncooperative
‘-I_don’t.quite understand the question. Perhaps you —
better phrase it again. sete ena
Q98. Here with the Hodge machine running over the
‘spinning frame I understand. lint might accumulate ‘at
certain places between the top and bottom creel boards?
A. Yes, ‘sir. oes 2:
_ - (17) Q99. Assuming that that is the coridition and
that it was true the lint accumulated because the air didn’t
- directly strike those places, wouldn’t it have occurred to.
you that if you wanted to dislodge that lint you would —
have to blow the air. in both places? 4. It might occur to —
me I would have to put another cleaner down there. to do
it. ee j
, _- Q100. T am not concerned with the number of clean-.
ers you use. If you clean one place you can clean another.
A. It might occur to me if I ‘had a source of air near the
point ‘where it wasn’t being cleaned I might clean it by
that air. : sai wlaniorhs
~, _Q101. But you could clean it regardless of the source Ke
of the air? A. Yes, sir. enue |
Q102. Are you familiar with instances in other arts
where a rigid tube or conduit was supplied with a flexible
_tubular outlet and through which fluid or solids. were —
- Caused to flow? A. There are a number of them. I am
familiar with a good many of them. ss “yagi
- Q103. Did you ever see one of these Holtzclaw clean.
» .€s shown-in the patent in’ suit? A. Yes, sir.
a (18) Q104. Just like that? A. Approximately like
that. This was made up very early in the development
stage and we may not have used commercially this exact
- Shape. It just dows an idea. -
Q105. How:hing did Parks-Cramer make and sell ap-
Posey age aupgrn ar sin itp
By q. ais | cs a kt :
il Hel | Hi 7 ial
aa: 2 ek < at ros S43
. Le 1,fg3: <_? tag jib ala in
i
Deposition of Robert
4 By iit
ea aes
BEER Hy iat nt thi"
{Hae
hs
j Deposition of Robert H. Brown : | a
-QU23. And tests?” A. Certainly.
Q124. So it would be necessary to experiment? A. |
‘Oh, yes, decidedly.
Q125. Does that same procedure apply to this thin
"ring referred to in Column 3, line 62 to 4 thin ring 260f |
rigid material permanently secured within the folds of the
_ cuff? A. Not so great. an extent perhaps, but it would |
apply.. The problems involved in that wouldn’t ‘be nearly
ee ene < :
= i ae =e oN
- (24) Q129. The cleaners of the Hodge patent, Exhibit
No. 2, brought ait to various parts of the spinning frame?
A. They didn’t bring it as close or didn’t Fcmove as much
_ difference in degree. More places are kept free of lint with
the patent apparatus than with the Hodge device? A. It
is more than a matter of degree because the old cleaner
had no effect in the underframe._ a3
QI3i. That is not disclosed? A. Not specifically.
re oe Sa ee ee
(27) Q144. Would it be fair to say American Monorail
_ first commercialized the ceiling cleaner? A. I think that |
example, with its Miller and Becker patent, Exhibit No.
. think would be fair to say that underframe
cleaners before the Miller were not very satisfactory in
ee 2: .s: 2 :
(28) Q151. You don’t know any one who preceded
the- American Monorail Company in the commercialized
"use of the traveling loom cleaner, dé’ you? A. I don’t know |
one way or the other.
Q152. This would apply to Parks-Cramer Company |
~ also: In other words, do you know whether American
Monorail preceded Parks-Cramer? A. Not very definite
knowledge. I have my suspicions that they did but I am
Q130. What I was getting at in any eoent was the .
ee |
“not sure. — see, Mr. Watts, we hear ani things and «
see them ‘illustrated but we don’t know and have to be
careful in answering questions. | . is
| * & #\ & #& sits |
TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY.
| APPEARANCES:
, For the Plaintiff:
rs MEssrs. Pennie. GRIER, PARKER & Por,
Attorneys at Law, |
400 Law Building, ;
Charlotte 2, North Caroline, a
By: JosEPH W. Grier, Jr., Esa.
Messrs. ‘HEARD, SmitTH, PorTER & Currmick,
- Attorneys at Law,
- 41 Tremont Street;
Boston 8, Massachusetts,
By: Crpric W. Porter, Esa.
For the Defendant:.
Messrs. CRAIGHILL, ‘RENOLEMAN & KENNEDY,
Attorneys at Law,
; 607 Law Building, © :
. Charlotte.2, North Carolina, : .
By: J.B. CRAIGHILL, Esq.
. MEssrs. RICHEY, Watts, EDGERTON & McNENNY,
Atgrneys at ‘Law, |
520 Union Commerce Building,
- Cleveland 14, Ohio,
By: B.D. Warts, Esa. and
Cuarues T. Watts, Ese.,
Quyce Lour, Esq,
-- 13107’ Athens Avenue,
~~" Cleveland 7, Ohio.
* &* * * x.
William B. Grainger, Direet and Cros ° pe a me
a) |
-Wituram B. Graincer, called as a witness ‘by and on
_ behalf of the Plaintiff, being first duly Sworn, was ex-
‘amined and testified as follows: | ;
- Seale EXAMINATION BY Mr. GRIER.
* ok. * *
(11) Q. ‘Can you give an estimate as to the percentage
cost of the labor in a spinning room which is devoted .to
cleaning? A. The spinner is generally considered to spend
approximately half of her time—that is, prior to the use
of any type of automatic traveling cleaner—approximately
half of her time must be devoted to cleaning.
qtaaines o& *
‘ (12), Q. Prior to ‘the advent. of . these traveling clean-
ers which (13) we see indicatéd in these photographs, how .
_ was the cleaning done? A. The cleaning prior to the use
of automatic traveling cleaners was performed by hand,
largely: by actual hand labor in wiping the surfaces; pick- |
ing the lint off by hand where it would accumulate. Some-
times compressed air was used to blow off parts of the
frame, such parts as a strong force of air would not cause °
damage or be detrimental. Sometimes brushes were used,
hand brushes. Picks: were used to move accumulations
that had matted up. And I have seen some hand fans used -
“to — fan the lint off generally. , |
* > - sa“ «
temas | aN
Cross EXAMINATION BY Mr. Warts.
Q. You stated you had an engineering degree. What
degree de you have? A. B.S. degree in engineering. Bach- —
elor of Scierice in industrial engineering.
Q..I see. I understand you to say that before the ad-
vent of erther the Walker or the Hodge traveling cleaner -
about one-half of the time of the-spinner. was used in.
cleaning the spinning machines? A. Yes, sir. —
»
2a: cor Wiliam B. Grainger, Cross Examination
@ Howe much of that time was saved by the Walker
and the Hodge cleaners? A: The amount of time she her-
self had to spend in (45) cleaning was reduced by approxi-
many fifty percent, or cut to Py age one-half.
—-’ . Q. Down to 20 percent of her time? A. Well, I will.
say nearer 25.
* » pe
(47) Q. You said. that before the advent of the Hodge
- and Walker cleaners, compressed air was used to clean .
the frames. Was that piped in through pipes. and then re-.
leased through a flexible hose, for example? A. It was—
Yes, sir, it was piped in to the room to fixed locations in.
the room; and a hose, very much like a common garden -
. hose, it has been my experience, was used. That some-
times had a metal nozzle on the end, and the air was di-
'. pected chiefly in the lower areas of the wns for blowing .
out the lint under there.
Q. Did they use metal pipe for piping the air in? A. |
That was brought to central locations ini the room, and -
’- then these long hoses, 50 feet or maybe 100 feet -OF 0."
. bi are still used. . :
- Q. What parts: ‘of the frame did you say were not -
reached—Let me limit that. What parts of the creel por- .
tion of the spinning frame did you say were not ade |
‘quately cleaned by the Hodge machines? A. The areas
immediately beneath the creel boards here and _ and
the bottom creel board. ?
Oe 2 Se *
. (48) Q. Do you know why it was that Hodge didn't |
satisfactorily clean under those creel boards? A: My ex-
perience with the Hodge cleaner was that the air being
_directed downward did not curve inwardly and poms t trans-
versely enough to get into those areas.
«2. er oe eee
(51) Q. And some of the air from those rigid nozzles
also struck the spools of roving between the creel boards,
Wiliam B. Grainger, Cross Examination 250°
| didn’t it? A. Yes, sir.. You could get some to strike this
portion here. Pe]
. : “3. 8 x . * _ * >
~Q. Could you determine where the air stream was
striking the creel boards and the other parts of the creel? .
_A. Yes, sir. It was possible to determine in a very good
manner where the air was striking. -
. (52) Q. Just a matter of looking at it, wasn’t it? -A.
Not altogether. In adjusting these: outlets, we would— .
I have myself attached a string to the inside of the outlet
_ here, and with the air coming from the outlet, the string
would follow the air stream; and that is the best indicator
I have had on the Hodge cleaner. There are other devices,
but that is the one I use.
Q. Couldn’t one simply by looking determine where
.. the airstream didn’t strike the parts of the creel? In other
- words, where the lint accumulated? A. It was possible to
walk down or through a spinning room and by observing _.
the creels you could see the accumulations of lint on the
tapers of these bobbins under the creel board and under
the middle creel board here, and there would be accumu-
’ - lations of lint on them. That was evidence that the air was _
‘hot getting to them. _ ss
~ Q: You could see that. ai. by looking ‘at’ it? Aw
You could see that by eye. — |
Q. Are you familiar with the patent in suit? A. No,
sir, I am not familiar with it.
‘Q. What does Exhibit 15 show? A. This is 157°
Q. Yes, that’s 15. A. This shows the adaptation of
the Holtzclaw improvement, the flexible extension here as
applied to the Hodge unit here. Ap
| ‘ Wal Se ee ae
-(64) Q. What was the term or name you applied to -
the apparatus, the cleaner, of Exhibit 15? Was that known .
as the Holtzclaw machine? A. I don’t believe I can recall
what we did refer to itas.
poe Td gm eentinnns te call: 0 Hedge Glacmer alte:
_ you sonneg the flexible cuffs to it? A. It was a Hodge
V
6;
is .
m é
Ya et ee . William B. Grainger, Cross Examination
yer & with the Holtzclaw adapter and extended flexible
sleeve.
Q. It was a Holtzclaw sleeve'on it? A. Yes; sir. . Am
Q. How. did the Hodge appara‘us of Exhibit I com- |
pare with the apparatus of Figure 2 as far as the functions
of the motor were concerned? A. The functions of the —
motyr I don’t believe were changed. It was still propelling:
- the unit along the track and generating the blasts of air.
Q. Ard the air stream created by the fan in the Hodge
apparatus of Exhibit 1 was blown.down through ‘the out-
let conduits 14 end 15 just theSame as it was in the case
of the cleaner of Exhibit 15? A. Yes, sir. |
Q.. And when the air rgached the lower end of those
outlets 14.and 15, it was then conducféd on down through
the (65) rigid sections 18 in each of those instances, each _
of those machines? A. Yes, sir. Part of it went through _
. 18, and part of it would go through 19 in this photograph.
Q. But in the Hodge machine of Exhibit,1, all of the
air went through the two rigid sections at the ‘lower end
of each of the outlet conduits? A. Yes, sir. °
s¥8u say when you came to this Holtzclaw flexible
* cuff, -you sdld them to people who were using the Hodge:
cleaners of Exhibit 1? A. Yes, sir. -
-Q. And there they were used to replace two of the
rigid sections of that cleaner? A. Yes, sir, two of the rigid -
cuffs. . . _ |
@ ae - * * * * .
(66) Q. That carriage was propelled along the track
‘in both instances—that is, Exhibit 1 and Exhibit .15—by
the same motor; and the fan was rotated in the same way -
in each instance; and the air was blown down. through |
the outlet conduits 14 and 15 the: same way; and it-was
. discharged through those rigid sections 18 in the same ~
outlet.
way, whether there was a flexible cuff on there or not.
Isn't that true? A. Yes, ‘sir, they. — from that ,
Q. So that adding the flexible cuffs, or substituting .
them for — sections, didn’t change the operation of the
‘William B. Grainger, Cross Examination ; 27m
cleaner? A. It still performed the mechanical function of
traversing the track and generating the air. ipa ¥
Q. Blowing out— A. Blowing it out through the out-
lets. Dees pode |
.Q. Did plaintiff ever make a so-called Holtzclaw
machine. as contrasted with this Hodge machine, or these
two exhibits 1 and 15, with the flexible cuffs attached, or
do you still make and sell that Hodge-type cleaner? A.
It would be: made if there were calls for it. ~ ,
oa Spee ee eee
~ (69) Q. But when you were providing a customer
who had a Hodge cleaner with flexible cuffs 19, did you put
them on for him or tell him how to put them on? A. Some-_ .
times I would put them on. In a few instances I did. Our a=
erectors would install them, and I believe sometimes the -
mill people themselves, following written instructions,
would make the installation. sat
Q. Did you in every instance so position those flexible
cuffs that the lower outlet end was just about slightly
below the upper creel board as shown in Exhibit 15? (70)
A. Yes, sir. 3 ER |
__.Q. And-that was so that- the flexible, cuff. would be
'- extended toward the creel and the packages of roving so |
as to blow air across the machine to the creel? @. Yes,
- Sir, direct air under and ‘in this area here. Under this
creel board here and up on this:side.
__, Q. And those flexible cuffs extended toward the ma-
- chine by reason of that curved-in lower end? A. Yes, sir. .
_. This curved end.extended in toward the machine.
Q: And because it did curve inwardly towards the
machine, it wastable to direct the currents of air against -
_ the machine and blow the lint off the packages of roving
~ and the two creel boards? A. If it was directed in this
area, the top tapers of the roving and the under-side . a
the creel board. of cees 3 Catag
-Q. And that was standard procedure, wasn’t it? A: .
At that time. ? ee a
6° £3 s
mn
28a | = William B. Grainger, Cross Examination
(72) Q. I see. About the time you began to sell that
‘device in Exhibit 4, did you let up on the sale or promo-
tion of the flexible cuffs 19 we have been talking about?
’ Flexible cuffs 19 of Exhibit 15, we will say? A. Yes, sir.
-The.demand was greater for this Holtzclaw cleaner here
- than for the "Hodge cleaner to which the (73) Holtzclaw
development was attached, because this produced so ) much
. more in cleaning.
Q. How long after Exhibit 4 was put on the market
did plaintiff come out with Exhibit 14? That is the one
there. A. I couldn’t say just how long it was. The best I
can recall, it wasn’t very long. ,
Q. Do you continue to sell both of them now, or have
you just let up on the sale of those cleaners of Exhibit 4? .
_A. If this would better fit a need; this would be'used. This
one works a little better than this. Therefore, this is used
in some installations.
Q.: The device of Exhibit 14-you have just said works
better than the one of Exhibit 4? A. Yes, sir. '
- 2 . 7
(77) Mr.- Watts: First, I will - the one to mark
” the tag as Defendant’s Exhibit B.
(Defendant’ s Exhibit B is- ‘marked for identif-
™ cation.) . a
Mr. ‘Watts: I will attach this to > thé: apparatus.
Q.° (By Mr. Watts) Now, Mr. Grainger, would you .
use that red pencil and apply to this Exhibit B reference »
numerals such as we have been ‘putting on. the photo-
graph. exhibits? Use the numeral] 12 to indicate the. fan
easing. A: (Witness marks Exhibit B. )
Q. And the numerals 14 and 15 to indicate the rigid 4
_ outlets leading downwardly from that casing.
' (Witness marks: the exhibit.)
| | ee Cee oe ee oe
(78) Q. Now, let me see if you-have ever seen a de
vice such as thig Exhibit B? A. This is Exhibit B?
William B. Grainger, Cross Examination 29a
(79) Q. That’s right. A° Yes, sir, JI have seen this
with the flexible sleeve attached
Q. Without the flexible sleeves and with the two
rigid sections=18 at the end of each outlet conduit, you
would have exactly what you have in Exhibit 1, would,
you not? A. Yes, sir. That’s right, with these—with _
another one of these here on either’ side it would be the |
same as this thing over here.
Q. And by “these” you mean the rigid sections 18?
A. The — sections, yes, sir.
oe ae ee
_ Q. Now, assume. you. went to that customer and sold.
him on the idea of using the flexible cuffs and sold him
some of the cuffs. 80) A. Yes, sir.
' .Q. Then one of these rigid sections 18 on each side
would be removed and the section 18A would replace it,
and to 18A in each instance you would. attach a flexible
cuff. A. Yes, sir.
Q.. And that is what - you did do for a period of time
-until-the demand fell off because of your making these
devices of Exhibits 4 and 14?-A. Yes, sir. . '
_° Q. And in each instance-the flexible cuff was a tubu-
~ lar, thin, hollow, tubular article open at each end and .
turned inwardly at the lower end so that the air would
go across the machine and remove lint from the creel? A.
Xe, sir.
. . * Se aoe eee
_ (95) Mr. Watts: Just before we close, if your Honor’ .
please, let me show once more the difference, if any, be-
tween the regular Hodge cleaner of Exhibit 1, and the
Holtzclaw cleaner of Exhibit ae ae
Q. (By Mr. Watts) The only, difference; as I get it, is
that in Exhibit 1 you have two rigid sections at the lower
end of each outlet conduit? A. Yes, sir. 7
| (96) & And in Exhibit B here; you have the same , .
Hodge cleaner but with two flexible—that is, partly flexible’
and partly rigid sections—instead of four rigid sections?
A. Yes, sir. |
” 30a | William B. Grainger, Re-Direct Examination
| Q. So you take off two'of the rigid sections 18 in the |
Hodge cleaner.—With the four rigid sections on, it's ‘a
Hodge cleaner? ‘A. Yes, sir..
Q. You take off two 6f'them and put on the flexible -
cuffs and it becomes the cleaner of the patent in: ‘suit? A.
I’m not that familiar'with the patent in suit. If you.added |
- the Holtzclaw flexible sleeve to the Hodge cleaner—
-Q.. So-that, in a word, without the flexible cuff it isn’t
the patent in suit; and with.them, it is? A. Yes, sir, if
it has the four 18’s as ‘designated 18—rigid metal outlets. |
* . 18 * *
_Re-Dmect ExaMINATION BY Mr. .GRIER.
Q. I believe you testified that the horse power of the
‘motor in the Plaintiff’s Exhibits 4 and 14 was increased
over the horse power motor in the Hodge cleaner? A.
Yes, sir. .
(97).Q. What was the purpose of increasing the hens
power of the moter? A. Since there were so many more .
outlets provided to clean more places on the spinning
frame and do a more-effective job, greater air was needed,
a larger amount of air was: needed so that required a
larger power plant, or motor.
~ . Q. Do you know, as between: the Hodge cleaner and »
_ these cleaners indicated as Exhibits 4 and 14, whether
- there were any changes made in the fan structure? A.
~ Yes, sir, there was some difference made in the fah struc
ture.
Q. What was , the purpose of the changes made there?
A. ee | ee eee <
- the surfaces to be cleaned.
~ Q. Would -it- be correct, then, to say that more air
‘was required to operate the cleaners indicated by Exhibits
4 and 14 than by, the old Hodge cleaner? A. Yes, sir, it
was.
Q. Would it be.correct to. say the Hodge cleaner did
not put enough air to have supported. the outlets as in-
dicated on those Exhibits 4 and 14 cleaners? A. I don't »
believe SO.
‘cu weeeneir veneers . Sla
(126) Mr. Watts: If your Honor please, I now. rénew
my objection to a number of: these exhibits and extend it
-to certain other ones. I object to receipt in evidence of
_ Exhibit 1, Exhibit 3, Exhibit 9, Exhibit 8, Exhibit 13, Ex-
hibit 14— &
The Court: 14 is 5 the plaintiff 's patent, is it not? ;
Mr. Watts: No,.sir. That is the so-called “elephant”
embodiment of the Holtzclaw device.
The Court: 14? - .
_ Mr. Watts: 14 is the one we used this morning. ‘
The Court: That is right. You said that was the
patent of what you were manufacturing now and which.
you allege is the thing which he infringes.
3 Mr. Grier: That's right, and he says he doesn’ t think
. it is.
The Court: I had it marked as | Plaintif s patent in
suit.
Mr. Grier: That’s tHe saitiaiiainans’ of it.
The Court: In othen words, that is what you claim
(127) you were given authority. to ‘have as the. whole of
ats » potent. from the Pa f é ind
‘Mr. Grier: That’s right. * of
The Court: And that is the thing you say he is manu-
facturing now that infringes, or the similarity of the thing
he manufactures now infringes what you claim is your ~
patent?
Mr. Grier: Yes, sir
The Court: All right, sir. |
. Mr. Watts: Then I object to Exhibits 24, 25, 26, 27;
28 and 30, provided the Exhibit 30 is Patent 2, 063, 874.
The Court: That is what he has it listed down.
Mr. Watts: Ours isn’t marked the same way.
The Court: I will take your objections, and I will take
_. them under advisement.
Mr. Watts: All right. ; 7
The Court: I have marked them here in red pencil
those objected to by the defendant. — reserved. All
right, Sir.
a | “Roy H. Todd, Cross Examination
ie H. Topp, called as a witness by and on: behalf
of the Plaintiff, being first duly sworn, was examined and
—* as follows: |
* ‘ . i ee
(130). -
Cross EXAMINATION, BY Mr. Warts.
Q. What type cleaners did you say you sold last year
that constituted 90 percent of your business? A. That
was the Holtzclaw, the flexible-type sleeve cleaner.
Q. Let’s pick out one of the exhibits—
The Court: 14.
Q. Was it the Exhibit 16 type? A. Yes, that’s right.
_ Q. What about Exhibit 4? A. That's i the.
same type.
- . The Court: That waited you cieed hie. ot you:
mind making that the Exhibit 14-16 type, because _
are the same thing? , |
_ Mr. Watts: Oh, yes, sir. Surely. -
- The Court: 14-16 type, because one has the oneine,
(131) and it will keep me from getting confused in the
matter.
Q. (By Mr. Watts) Did your company sell any clean- —
ers last year of the type of Exhibit B? A A. Nothing except
replacements. ;
Q. Nothing except ‘replacements? A. And repairs. -
a Did you sell any sleeves or cuffs last year? A. Of
that type?
Q. Yes. A. Well, I onda’ say. I don’t know.
Q. You said that last year you estimated that the.
cleaners you sold reduced the labor ‘cost to the customer, .
I assume, to the extent of a million and a half dollars; is
that right? A. Yes, sir.
- ‘Q. What basis did you have for that? A. ‘The basis
- for that was the information we get from the managers
and the superintendents be the textile plants. we sold- ,
— to.
6
‘Roy H. Todd, Cross Examination = ie Ba
- Q. What is the form of that information? A. _ ;
as a rule, letters, or oral to the salesmen.. |
.Q. Do you have any of those letters here? A. No, sir. °
Q. What did they say? A. Well, I'm not too familiar
with that, because usually (132) it is usually taken up in
our Engineering and Sales Departments. That’s handled
in our Sales Department, and I don’t handle sales. |
-Q And that answer you gave on direct examination
is purely hearsay? A. Well, it’s what we estimate. I am
the Manager and Director of the company. kknow some-*
thing about the operation of it.
) Q. But your estimate is based on something that —
‘somebody told somebody: in your organization? -A. Well,
yes. Well, with letters that came by my desk, yes, from
managers and superintendents it mills. |
i Q. But you still don’t know if the facts given to you
‘on which you based your estimate wer true? A. (No
response. ) Re
The Court: (To the witness) ‘You only know just |
wha ang said? |
e Witness: No, I — t know whether they
were, no, sir. ‘o
Q. What was. the ey on ai you ctiaiainail that,
million and a half dollar saving? Was it over hand clean-
ing? A. Yes, and also the efficiency of your machine. You
know, when you have a machine cleaner, you have more -
efficient yarn. In other words, the yarn has better quality;
_and you save that. And you also save by having an oper- _
ator (133) to. operate both sides of the spinning frame.
> That’s what we save on it; because this type cleaner prac-
tically does a complete job of cleaning.
. Q. But the basis for your comparison was Kand labor?
A. Not altogether, you see— |
Q. What did you use as your basis? A. ‘We wed as ¥
basis because we could use the machine.
Q. As compared with what? . A. Of course, hand. It.
~. was hand after that—
Q. Hand operated? AL Yes.
i ier * 8 a Se ei
ne
floats iinaiiaiie ai at tntenteks
haif of the Plaintiff, ee ey eee was examined
and testified as follows:
— *
(137)
Cross Examination By Ma. Warts.
Q. Mr. Whitener, I am a little confused about this "
so-called Hodge type cleaner you were talking about. Is
it the apparetus thet is chown by Exhibit 17 A. Yes, |
think so. 7
. (438) Q. That's what pos gve-Been having in wisi
heh ue NEES Sie Saw sat Se eee pen ee
_. tained with the Hodge type cleaner? A. Yes.
| ‘Q. Here is Exhibit 15. Is that-what you call the Holtz.
claw type? Or did you call it? A. I don’t think I called it.
We have had that type of equipment like this here. es
Q. And is it true that this week we obtained from
your plant this Exhibit B? A. Yes. st
Q. And it was in the scrap heap at that time? A. Yes,
itwas. -
Q. Now, have you dlls fepieen Gat would dow te
- saving in cleaning time which was made by the apparatus
of Exhibit 15 over the apparatus of Bubibit' 1? A. ‘tne
x opposed to this?
Q. That's right. A. 5 dan't tiene cui o fgese, tn, sir.
Q. Was there a noticeable difference in labor, clean- —
ing labor, when you went from the cleaner of Exhibit 1 to
the flexible nozzle cleaner of Exhibit 15 and Exhibit B’
’ A. On this particular picture I don’t think there is‘a great
deal, but the one we have now, there is a great deal. .
~ Q. Let's stick to these two: Exhibits 1 and 15. As !
(139). get your testimony, there was no appreciable dif:
ference in saving in cleaning time between those two
cleaners? A. I don’t. have any figures on that.
Q. It has been testified that with the flexible cuffs of
Exhibit 15 and Exhibit B, a little better cleaning was ob-
tained between the middle and the top creel boards. Was
- your experience? A. I think so, yes, sir ;
Se eg: inmate ee
- QQ Was it also your experience that there was more
lint accumulation between the middle creel board and the
- bottom creel board when the flexible cuffs of that exhibit
were used? A. Was there more accumulation in the
middle than-in the top? .
-Q. That’s right? A. I would think so.
-Q. You are sure of it, aren’t you? A. Yes, sir. .
are i a oe ete ls temeenatten ty ti
Grier was between the cleaner of Exhibit 1, the Hodge-
_type; and the cleaner of Exhibit 14.. Is that correct? A.
_ Labor saving? .
- QQ Yes. A. ‘That's right. Thig is the one we saved the
’ labor with.
Q. Yes. Exhibit 14: (140) A. Yes. :
-Q.,When you put in the cleaner of Exhibit 14, did
"you discard the cleaner of Exhibit 15? A. Some.of these,
as I remember ‘it, were reworked. I don’t. know if you
‘ want to call it the housing or the hood or the distributor
.part, was changed to take care-of the outlets underneath.
_ Q.. In other words, you— A. We used the motor part <2
and the fan part of it.
Q. Ghd ven gut macee extin? A. Yes. :
Q. Instead of the four you had here on Exhibit B, you
_ added several? A. Yes. Fey engel Ge hemes ond
the distributor part of it.
The Court: That is 15. you are looking at now, is it
not?..
Mr. Watts: Yes, your Honor. :
@ Mews Gi cempaiteens te corte of dheening tne
‘were made by you, also between the cleaner of Exhibit 15
and of Exhibit 14? ‘A. Yes. That's when I realized the
greatest saving. :
an Bo Gp caving im tap yee elted chews A. Was
_ this type. .
Q. Was attributable to 14 and:it was over and: above |
(MA) eagthing io Behibet 1 o 15? A. a ‘
+s * . * Be *
ew ° ~
. 3a Laster Whitener, Re-Direct; S. M. Cauble, Cros
‘Se Danse EXAMINATION HY Mr. Gaier.
Q. Referring to Plaintiff's Exhibit 15, you stated that
the cleaning was better beneath the top creel board than
beneath the second creel board?
The Court: —pasinaal
Mr. Grier: Yes. |
a.m . |
Q. Can you why that was’, (142) A. Because
the air' was not. pee Gt oem geegaalp.” ee
(181)
‘ Forrest Kulp, Direct Examination — . Sta
: @"And. -your estimated savings in labor cleaning,
hand labor, was based on the use of the Exhibit 14 device
over and above the device of Exhibit 1? A.- That's exactly
right. -
° @ hr a aa have you had any cleaning
apparatus like Exhibit 15? A. No, sir, we did not. :
Q Never had-any like that? A. No, sir.
. ¢ Aad that is the same as Exhibit B with the flexible
nozzles.on each side? A. We never had that. |
5? eo 2 & © 6
, (154) Q. So the only advantage, <r e
_ flexible nozzle in Exhibit B and Exhibit 15 over the old
type Hodge cleaner would be that you removed a little lint
| a between the upper and middle creel boards? A.
Well, you have got your air directed to the place where it
keeps it clean af all times. }
e. * * *
(162) |
E. Forrest Kur, wallets atinans tay ienhi ential
; of the Defendant, being frst duly ‘sworn; was examined
and testified as follows:
-. Draect eenumenen sy Mr. Warts.
Q. Please state your full name. A. E. Forrest Kulp. -
-Q. What is your age anil occupation? A. My age is
Q. How long Have you beun stationed in Charlotte?
(163) A. A little over ten years. Since January, 1946.
_ Q. Simee you are sales engineer for the company, I
‘Presume you are familiar with their various textile clean-
ing equipment? A. I am. a
a nn a
«
‘Company.
38a E. Forrest Kulp, fe-Direct Examination
(174) Q: On Monday of this week, ‘we were out at.
Ranilo, I believe? A. Yes.
At what plant? A. A, MM. ‘Smyre_ Manufacturing
.Q. And did you see out there any apparatus ‘ike *
Plaintiff's Exhibit 4? A. No, we did not.
Q. Did we see an apparatus like Plaintiff's Exhibit 14?
A: Yes, we did.
Q. Did you make eny mesnicenientel A. Yes, I did.
Q. t did” you measure? A.. \We measured the
height of|the metal part of the nozzle, the Jong trunk, the
height of that metal to the floor.
Q. What was the distance? A. Approximately five
feet eight and a half inches.
Q. That part you are referring to there is the rigid
"section at the extreme left side of the apparatus of Exhibit
14? A. That's right |
' (175) Q. il oun shtnves Ohinlhes oc not that rigid
suite dieitiewin tae: aaah aad beenat 4 That
is the reason I measured it, because it was right down
around my eye level, and I wanted to see what it was in
_ feet_and inches.
(176) Q. -You are familiar with the patent in suit, at
least to the extent.of knowing what the figures show? A.
Yes. .
2. Could that apparatus clean, or did ti clean below
the middle creel board? A. Not in the creel area itself. It
did some cleaning between the creel and the roll stand,
_and the roll stand somewhat, and some on the guides.
of the frame? A. No, ‘it-didn’t.. .
Q. we
Re-Direct EXAMINATION sy Mr. Warts.
Pie \e * # «8 a age Renee aperre-
(182): Q. 1947, say, December 12th, when the
application for the Holtzclaw patent in suit was filed, until
ahout a year ago, did Parks-Cramer, to your knowledge,
have any device which would clean within the underframe
- of.a spinning frame? A. Not to my: knowledge. Never
heard of it orgaw it. | ee oe
* : 8 * *
| asp > ae ,
Ropert C. Sessions, called as a witness by ‘and on
behalf of the Defendant, being first duly sworn, was
examined and testified as follows: é :
. Direct Examination sy Mr. Warts.
Q. Mr. Sessions; state your full name, age and resi-
dence. A. Robert C. Sessions. I am 58 years old and live
in Lakewood, Ohio. See ig Ste
Q. What is ger occupation? A. I am a consulting
mechanical and electrical engineer, and-I also do part-
time work for the National Advisory Committee for
Aeronautics. ae dee eee “a
Q. Are you a registered Engineer and certified to
practice as such in the State of Ohio? A. Yes, I am a
SR ee ee
__° _Q. Will you state what qualifications you have in suip-
‘port of your testimony.before the Court here?. That is,
rt
what qualifications have you that make your testimony of —
_ assistance to the Court? (194) A. I studied engineering
and graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree from the
' Worcester Polytechnic Institute in 1919. The next year, _
" Thad-a fellowship to continue my studies. in Swéden; and
_ Since that time, I have been practically continuously -en-
' gaged in matters pertaining to-mechanical and electrical
processes. I am familiar with the problems relating to the
handling of air. I am familiar with the various types of
cleaning apparatus: I have, on several occasions, a good
‘Many occasions, testified in engineering matters in patent
litigation. in the Federal Courts. I have bsen called upon
‘o analyze and interpret patents, both in connection with
| : 2
Oa | eae ee Robert C: Sessions, Direct Examination |
my’ priet prsstice and in connection with my ether enigley- |
_ ments during the course.of the past thirty years or more.
| Tam a member of the American ‘ of Mechanical
The Court: I imagine he has laid out his qualifications
. sufficiently to be found by the Court as an expert, 801
make such finding.
| Mr. Watts: “May I ask just one more question?
The Court: Yes, sir.
Q. Have you had occasion to examine or to observ
— A. Yes, I have.
e @ ¢' @ 8 7
: (195) Q...Will you describe the structure, mode of
_ operation and results of the device which I will ask the |
- ‘Clerk to mark aad identification as Defendant’s- Exhibit
BS ee
: (Defendant s Exhibit F is marked for identifi-
- gation.) |
A. Ths eguisaaten'et Dekentiiits Salinia Scud
‘ing unit -made by the American Monorail Company. It
uses a rotary blower to provide a source of air under
pressure. The unit itself is not\power-driven. The motor
‘of this unit does not drive the unit along the track. It
is pulled along as a trailer by another power-driven unit,
‘power-driven unit being one of these Tri-rail, so-
in, Ni Cee te SS ee Ser
. ow poe» a }
' The Wi gy ee
a motor that is en, ‘Sh ants 2 aihanh os '
part of the. ine. The unit is carried on a trackway,
(196) which , of three tracks. The air is forced out |
. gidewise, laterally. and then downwardly, through —
these black ducts or. , to holes in the side of the tube.
bemeniiUeie Cait
\
ef
x
+
pera AE EY Re OO
- above the ring rail, and the other holes are located at points
_ from there on down, to be atranged forthe purpose of -
"directing air toward the ing rail section and the. under-
- frame area of the machine,
These ducts, which are
square—about five inches quare. I have a cut-away piece
of one of them which’ I will refer to. This piece has had
' "some newspaper stuffed in it to hold it open, but the con-
struction may be seen. Rach obje, in the front and back — |
directions, besides— .
Js @ Ts tas th direction of travel? A. lin the direction of
travel ofthe machine, have pockets in them extending
through the entire length, and in those pockets are placed ©
_-fiber-board stays, which are, of course, stiff and rigid in
of the spinning frame.
= one direction but which will bend in the other direction.
As the result of that construction, these ducts or tubes are
_ held fairly rigidly from movement toward and away from
the spinning frame but can yield in the direction length-
wise of the spinning frame or parallel to the movement of
of synthetic material, are me
‘travel. When yielding in that manner, (197) they can also -
twist some to one side, but they, when not being bent or.
twisted in normal operation, that is to say, when they are
not striking an obstruction of any sort, they will tend. to
. bend, they are rigid ‘and firm in the direction transversely |
of the machine. They resist movement toward or away
from the frame. | |
Q ‘Let me interrupt just a moment. ee
Mr. Watts: Would the Clerk please mark this portion 2
of the tube as Defendant’s Exhibit “G” and let the record
| “show that that exhibit includes the two fiber stays which
fit in the pockets of that exhibit. a
aan (Defendant's Exhibit G for ‘identification ‘is
marked.) -
Q. You may proceed. A. baited 2 caabinned, but I
am not sure, so I will say it again in any event: There is on
each side of this unit a single square outlet duct made of *
a Se Senn So ae thepe bp 0 cine dost made of
* em
a eae ss Robert C. Sessions, Direct Examination
a plastic mie, That duct, of course, also includes the
fiber stays, stiffening stays.
Q. Would you discuss the operation and results of
of 7 (198), spinning “ama
-. Q. Now, does It-—
The air issuing from
toward the machine as well ‘as—
Q. Vertically, of about thirty eee At an an-
gle of about thirty degrees to the horizontal ‘angle. Be:
"’ ‘tween thirty-five and forty degrees to the horizontah,
- Q And from the metal part, the casing, down the
- first hole the stream of air is going vertically downward? | on
A. Yes, that’s right:
Q. And these tubes are substantially vertical? A.
That’s right. .
Q. And when the air comes to the first hole: it tends
to continue on-down and towards, ithe machine? A. “Yes,
it goes toward the machine and downwardly. :
--Q:-What is the direction of the air at the next. lower
| hole? A. That air also—of course, that is a wider nozzle,
so it’s a wider stream of air—but it also is moving down-
- wardly as well as toward the machine when it passes out
of (199) that hole, when it passes out of that. hole.
om Q. Did you notice whether or not there ‘was any
* cleaning of the upper creel board _ ter this apparatus? A.
In my,opinion there isn @pleaning, and I didn’t notice p any
—". cleaning of the uppe ppes cree board
at apply to the jpackeges of roving
_ -hanging from the upper creel board? A. Yes. |
Q. And does.
Q. What about the middle creel board and the pack-
aces of roving hanging from that? A. The same comment: °
; would apply to that. |
}
° P
: 40> tenn, °
e- you observed the direction of -
Bee air currents issuing from Cong tegen tim
the tuibes, flexible tubes? AS Y
those holes moves slightly dowatardly. Actually, at about .
an angle of—from the top holes the air moves down at an |
angle of. between thirty.and forty degrees, downwardly .
Robert C. Sessions, Direct Examination : - @a_
: Q. Where does most of the air issuing from the top-.
most hole in that vertical pipe strike the machine or the
spinning frame? A. It strikes the machine—I think the
center of the blast of air strikes the machine about at the
_ little rings on each side. .
Q. Thread guides? A. The thread guides, yes.
Q. About here? A. Yes.
a Where does it go then? A. Then it spreads out
sae and enters the machine.
Q: Are you familiar with the patent in suit? A.
Yes.
(200) Q. You have henel its structure and operation
- " and:results described? A. Yes.
Q. (Continuing)—In the testimony here? A. I'am
not sure I have heard very much, but I mean, I have heard
the testimony here. To whatever extent that has been
described, I have heard that, yes.
Q. Will you describe that with respect to the struc-
ture, operation and results: of the device shown and de-
~sseribed in that patent? A. This Holtzclaw patent in suit
No. 2,524,797 is described as being a machine of the Hodge
. type. The patent to Holtzclaw, in the first column at line
tm? explains that “Typical traveling cleaning mechanism
and the arrangement thereof of the character above de-
| geribed are disclosed in the following patents. granted to
William B. Hodge, Nos. 2,047,558 July 14, 1936, 2,128,207 -
August 23, 1938, and 2,184,880. December 26, 1939, and.
therefore need not be illustrated and described in detail
as the present invention relates only. to improvements
in the mechanism for directing the blasts of air delivered
by the fan,”
In other words,, this is a traveling denn such as
-is shown in the Hodge: patents mentioned there, and I.
have compared the drawings of this Holtzclaw patent with
. those Hodge patents and find that the fan. structure
shown is (201). substantially identically the same as is
shown i im some detail in the Hodge Patent 2,184,880. It-is
also generally the same, but not’ quite as closely the same,
to the — Patent No. 2,047,558. :
go
Mt oe Robert C. Sessions, Direct Examination
The inventor Holteclaw here continues his explana-
- tion and tells how the Hodge cleaners described in patents
he has just mentioned and which he says.are the same as.
his invention here, his cleaner here, except for the im-
provement mentioned, there: have two adjustable sleeves
or nozzles at the end of each air conduit which extends
from the fan casing.
In other words; your Honor will remember the photo-
graphs you - -have seen previously of the Hodge cleaner
which showed a fan casing and outlet conduits substan-
= tially the same or the same as shown in this Defendant'’s
Exhibit B, in which the outlet conduit on each side is, as
Holtzclaw explains here, provided with two adjustable .
_ outlets. In other words, there are two outlets on the side,
and that’s what Holtzclaw i is describing -here in the part of
his patent I have just referred to.
And he continues’ and says—this is about line 49 of
column 1, starting: at line 47. (Reading) “* * * one of
which directs the blast of air downwardly upon the side
of the machine therebeneath and the other of which directs
the blast of air transversely across the machine.”
* * * * *
(202) The Witness: And he continues to explain how
these prior Hodge machines operated by explaining that
because the nozzle terminates above the top of the ma-
chine it’s “ineffective in satisfactorily preventing deposi-
tion or’accumulation of lint and ‘the like upon rigid parts
of the. machines ‘not located in the direct paths of the
blasts of air, or upon mechanism for the material being
treated located closely therebeneath.”
And then he points out that the particular problem
was the cleaning of the lower face of the creel board. That's
at lines 6 and.7 of column 2.
Mr. Grier: Where do you find the word “particular”?
The Witness: I don’t find that. (Reading) ‘“* * *.and
upon the spools of roving located closely therebeneath
* * *” He makes his particular reference to that. Perhaps |
that’s a more. exact statement.
Robert C. Sessions, Direct Examination p "50
Now, in this connection, I ‘iuiel like to iin next |
to column three on the next page, and here the construc- ~
tion of this Holtzclaw patent is described, as far as the
outlet conduits and the mechanism for directing the air _
is concerned. This starts at line 22, and in the paragraph
beginning at (203) line 22, he explains that: (Reading) .
“Each of the conduits 14 and 15 has preferably adjustably -
secured * * #.”
_ T'think. if I could have one of these enlarged charts ©
we have here, I could refer to it more carefully.: (A
chart is here provided for the witness.) .
_ This is an enlarged photograph of figures 1 and: 2 of
the Holtzclaw pavent in suit, and:I have colored parts of
those enlargements to more clearly bring out and make
apparent, the various parts of the machine which I want
_ to refer to particularly. So the point I am referring to here
states that: (Reading) “Each of the conduits 14 and 15:
* * *” Those are the two-side legs or branches which
come dawn from the center fan section or fan ee.
The Court: That is the light blue? -
The Witness: That is in light blue, yes. (Reading)
. “** * has preferably adjustably secured to its lower end
a downwardly extending sleeve or nozzle 18 * * *” and that
is the so-Called rigid sleeve or nozzle, colored in red here
on the chart. (Reading): ‘“* * * for directing the blast of
air therefrom downwardly upon the side of the machine
therebeneath * * *.” Your Honor will see downwardly ex-
tending lines with arrows on them showing the general
» direction of the.air from those two nozzles 18. There is
one of those.on each side of the machine. The one on the
right-hand side in these two figures is behind the flexible
nozzle 19, so only (204) a tiny portion of it shows here.
You see that part of it colored red there. That is the end
of the nozzle 18 on ‘the right-hand side; so there is one ,
: downwardly directed rigid nozzle or oa section on‘ each
side.
And the ee Ta contiaiue. (Reading): ‘‘* * *
and also a downwardly extending sleeve or nozzle 19 for
directing a-current oe air ‘transversely across the machine.”’
a geo | + Robert C. Sessions, Direct Examination -
On each side there is also a flexible outlet section attached .
to what are called outlet conduits 14 and 15, and the
flexible section I have colored in purple. .
And the patent shows arrows showing the direction of
air currents coming from those flexible nozzles and how
ie —— directed transversely across the machine so
that it hits the top of the upper spools of roving and will
‘flow under the upper creel board: -
The patent continues. “In the ee invention either
or both of the’nozzles may be of highly flexible material
- adapted to yield upon impingement of an obstruction in
the path of travel of the nozzles. Preferably the nozzles
_ 18'of the machine are of rigid material and terminate at |
such height as not to engage an obstruction such as an
operator passing through the aisle between groups of ma-
_ chines. The nozzle 19, which conducts. the blast of air
transversely of the machines, is of highly flexible mate-
"rial * * al 99
_ (205) I might stop here just a moment to explain that
’ this patent mentions the use of “highly flexible material”
in several places.. The degree of flexibility is not explained
in. the patent, and it seems likely that to determine the
proper flexibility experimentation would be needed be
cause of the rather indefinite statement as to: what i is or is
not highly flexible material, see
Q. Is that term “highly flexible material,” or is that -
element so described,.an essential one in the combination?
A. It is the same element that is carried forward in Claim —
6 of the suit. ete.
. Q. No, I mean, structurally isn’t that the heart of
the— A. Oh, yes, that’ s the sole change from the ye
Hodge patent. - — |
- Q: And it is described only by the term “highly !
- flexible’? A. That's right.
_ Q. Does:the patent also say what ssitiaiel might be
used? Does it say anything about the material? A.. Yes,
it does.
Q. What? A. It states es that the—Before I come to
that, I might continue the sentence I am on. —
"Robert C. Sessions, Direct Examination a
Q..Go right ahead. A. And.I will continue the por-
tion I was reading, which begins on line 44, column. 3.
(Reading) :*“* * * and extends (206) well below the end
of the nozzle 18 and is provided with an inwardly curved
' and preferably tapering end portion *.* *.”
Your Honor can see the portion cqlored purple on the
chart how this end portion tapers to become slightly
smaller at its outlet end and is also curved inwardly to
direct the air inwardly across the machine at that level.
(Continuing to read):
‘“* * * which is sastthanait at such predetermined -
height as to direct the air inwardly neneam the creel
board * * = ”?
Now, I want to. call particular attention to that, be-
cause in the patent drawings—and I refer now to figure
l-of the patent drawings—two of the creel boards are
numbered. The upper creel board is numbered 4, and
the patent calls the creel board which we here in this case
have been calling the middle jcreel board, the patent calls
it the lower creel board; but in any event,a different
numeral is applied to that middle creel board. It is marked
3. So that at this point in the patent he is explaining that
the inwardly curved flexible nozzle 19 on each. side is lo-
_ cated beneath the creel board 4, i.e., beneath the upper
creel board. (Continuing to read):
“* * * thereby to prevent accumulation of lint upon
the under face of the creel board or upon the spool of
roving 5 and the strand 20 * * *.”-
Strand 20 is the strand leading from the upper spools
(207) of roving. It’s marked here on figure 1 of the
patent. .
; Now, regarding the material of the cuff 19, the highly
flexible cuff, paragraph starting at line 36 states: , (Baed-
ing):
: “Preferably the sleeve or nozzle 19 comprises a cuff
of suitable woven fabric which desirably is impregnated
with suitable material to make it impervious to the blast
of air passing therethrough and is provided with means
for retaining it in expanded condition.” ;
| : . ar
Weasels Robert C. Sessions, Direct Examination
. Now, the material mentioned there seems to be gen-
erally the material which seems. to comply or seems to
agree with or corresponds to the material which was used
on this Holtzclaw device, which is defendant’s Exhibit B.
Q. Does the patent describe any particular material
‘except to say that it’s “woven fabric”? A. No, it doesn't
describe any particular material, and it does not describe
or does not tell how flexible or how stiff that material
should be. The different fabrics and the different manners
of impregnating would well result in different degrees. of
flexibility. —
Q. The patent refers'to suitably impregnated mate.
rial. Does it name any? A. No, it does not name any.
| Q. Are these two things, i.e., the fabric and the im-
pregnated material—are they essential to the apparatus
(208) of the patent in suit? A. Yes, they are the only
thing there is that differs from the Hodge device, if there
is any difference, as the inventor himself states in column.
1 of his patent: His invention relates only to the improye- _
ments in the mechanism for directing the blasts of air
delivered to the frame, and the only change that he has .
made in that respect over the Hodge device was to change
one of the rigid outlet nozzles on each side and attach to —
it a short flexible cuff having an inwardly turned lower
end.
~ Q Could ent sendinig tho patent tn wait Gutermine |
without experimentation the flexibility, the necessary |
flexibility, or the proper fabric to use in constructing it, or
the proper impregnating material to use? A. No,-not in -
my opinion: I think it will take trial and experimentaticn.
Q. That would be as to each one of those three fee
‘tures? A. Yes. Certainly to secure a combination which
would be satisfactory would require more information or
| more knowledge than is available or is given in the patent _
_ . itself.
. Q Did you describe‘how this apparatus of the patent .
in suit was actuated? A. No, I think perhaps I did not de
scribe that. This is the same as several prior patents,
going at least back to a Walker patent; and the Holtzclaw .
cn
-
[
/
J
- Q Have you considered and discussed Hodge patent
No. 2,184,880, which, I believe, has been marked De-
fendant’s Exhibit A? . \
; a oS oe ee
(210) Q. Have you described that patent as to the
* structure, moue of operation and results; and in doing so,
.perhaps you can compare it with the apparatus of the _
patent in suit which you have just described. A. This is
Hodge Patent 2,184,880, and figure 2 of it has been repro- |
. duced on a large scale by a photographic process on the |
upper right-hand corner of the chart which I have been |
referring to in connection with the Holtzclaw patent.. -
Q Let's mark that chart now. © .
The Court: Is that the same as Hodge 15?
Mr.‘Watts;/ Yes, your Honor. Let us mark that large
chart as Defendant’s Exhibit H. Ae
(Defendant's Exhibit No. H is marked for identifi-
cation. )
The Witness: Your Honor, I might, just to clarify
eet, dian eee See Gencbuee
ee ee . Robert C.
‘fae tintam aowe St mote a Gn ee |
cuff was installed. =.—sai= }
. The Court: That is the blue-part?.
The Court: In other words, snakes: tn teat Ws
. the December 26, 1939, Hodge patent is similar to the ©
earlier model except it has extended hard cuffs. Is that
right? The part which you represent by the red?
‘The Witness: No. I am afraid I haven't made myself
quite clear yet, your Honor. Maybe this is a better way of
saying what the point I am trying to make is: That is,
that this machine of the Hodge patent 2,184,880, which is *
prior art to the patent in suit—
- The Court: Yes.
The Witness: lis tonite tens sae techies, Op
(212) patent in suit. That’s an expired patent. .
-, The Court: But followed the Hodge No. 1. |
_ The. Witness: Followed some of the earlier Hodge de-
velopments; that’s right. And this patent showed the con-
struction in its entirety, which was the identical structure
shown here to make Defendant’s Exhibit B; and to make
Defendant’s Exhibit B, one of the rigid noasles or rigid
outlet sections: was. removed, and the flexible cuff was
applied on each side. So we have referred to that pata
itself.
|
ee :
I think a side view may make it a little more clear.
If you will look at figure 1 on the first sheet of the draw-
_ ing, your Honor, up in the middle, this is a much smaller
scale. There is a side view of this entire unit, and extend-
the other, two of these outlets 118. So that would be a
Looking at Defendant’s Exhibit B, side view; with two .
_ outlet nozzles on that side, and there are two outlet noz-
* gles on the other side..
Now, the view of figure two, which has been repro-
uced on this chart H, has the end view. It’s the same as
- the exhibit as I -have turned it now. You can see the fan
casing at the top, in which there is a fan like the fan 3; .
the motor portion was not brought into it. The two outlet
(213) conduits. on each side, extending down and slightly
laterally, spread out slightly—not very much And then
“at the bottom side there is in this view, one sees one of -
the rigid outlets or nozzles on the left side and another one
on the right-hand side. — : |
' . . Those rigid sections or nozzles at the bottom end of
these ducts‘are.in the Hodge patent 880, are made adjusta-
ble so that they may be moved toward or from the center
of the machine to. direet the air both downwardly and
This particular Hodge patent made no attempt to
claim anything regarding the air duct structure. In other.
words, this was not the—The invention involved here
was the detail of stopping the blasts of air at certain points .
along the machine; in other words, he showed a cleaner, |
. but the invention claimed in this Hodge patent related to
the means of starting and stopping the fan, to stop the
blasts of air When it passed over certain parts of the spin-
ning frame or over the aisles. That, of course, is not a
- Matter of any importance and means nothing here in this
Suit. | | oi
So I refer now to the left-hand side of the chart of
Exhibit H,and your Honor can see how closely similar
. and how, exactly the. same effect the device shown by
it does refer to the use of flexible material. On page 3
your Honor. There is a 3 up in the
first column of that page starting
at line 31. First, I say in line 32 there is a word
“provided,” which, in the specification as originally ‘filed
and has been certified to by the Patent Office was and
should have been “pivoted” instead of the word “pro —
vided.” So, with that in mind, the sentence here reads:
“Although these spouts aré not pivoted they are made of
(216) Q. Tell the Court what is shown on the other
part of the chart. A..In the center of the chart, Defend- —
ant’s Exhibit H, Claim 6 of the Holteclaw patent in suit -
into paragraphs or.elements in an. attempt to more clearly |
show the features involved, the elements involved in the _
/
Robert C. Sessions, Direct Examination - ‘58a
structure which is defined by the claim—to show that _
consists of a single motor which-drives both the fan and
propels the carriage, and the claim so specifies that there -
_ is a (218) motor and means operable by said motor for
propelling the carriage and for rotating said fan. - |
- The next element of the claim is (reading): “A fan |
casing enclosing the fan having an inlet and oppositely —
positioned outlet conduits, * * *.” The fan casing is colored -
in brown. It is marked 12 on the drawings of the patent
e
in suit. The inlet is yellow. It’s marked 13 on the draw- -
_ings of the patent in suit. The oppositely positioned outlet
| conduits are blue, and they are numbered 14 and 15 on the
é
Then we to’ more or less of a major division in
claim where one might say that the part of the claim
to this point describes and defines the machine itself
operators standing,” finds
its (219) precedent in the language of the patent specifica-
tions. I will refer to column 3 of the patent in suit, starting
at line 37, which reads (reading) (Plaintiff's Ex. 12):
. “Preferably the nozzles 18 of the machine are of
_Tigid material and terminate at such height—"
The Court: Where is that, now?. - |
. The Witness: It’s on the second page. The column it
headed by the numeral 3. |
The Court: Yes, I see it.
é The Witness: (Continuing to read): “e © © 18 of the
machine are of rigid material and terminate at such height
the machine operator is the nozzle 18, and I have shown
Cat es Sa eh ie A ERNE OE oh So Gree oe Oe
patent. : ef |
The next element of the claim reads: “* * * and in
which the said conduits at_ each side are provided with a
- Now, I itis iis th didicnate dui teatte
ed flexible member 19, in some places the nozzle and
fill
fd
ie
aeee
at
Th
+
if
8
eB
‘
i
ifs
;
Mr. Watts: {ask the Clerk to, mark that definition a
' Defendant’s Exhibit J.
(Defendant's Exhibit J is marked.)
| oe oe ee .
(221) The Witness: 1 think in this défizition the No. 5.
definition will probably adhere, because it is (reading):
“Mech.” This is an abbreviation for mechanism or
tnechanical, and -it reads: “Something resembling, or
likened. to a cuff for the wrist.” :
, Now this description or definition of the “quff” in the
claim says that it.is both of highly flexible material, as the
specifications of the patent stated, and it says that it ex-
—~
>
tends therefrom toward the machines. That means. it ex-
directed toward the center of the spinning frames, towards
ey ree Seemann Sie epee Sew af Apacs: of
—
Me
_ Then, tis decrptive portion ofthe or more or
less functional statement is added which reads, (reading):
“*.* ® to enable currents of air produced by the fan and —
aonerant, Graeals Ho outa to bn Senet sates Go:
machines * * *” There again the teaching of the
that this air is directed acrogs, against and across the
- of- roving between the upper and middle creel
marked 3 and 4. (Continuing to read): “0? ond the
cuffs to yield upon impingement with an operator or other.
obstruction in their path of travel.” -
I think I might again refer at this time to this actual
structure, Defendant's Exhibit B, and call your Honor's
attention to the fact that it is, s0 far as the parts which are
here are concerned, this is an exact replica, a substantially —
exact_replica, of the structure shown in the drawings of
the patent ‘in suit; and we have supported this Exhibit B
on top of the tri-rail or track, which is part of Defendant's
. Exhibit F, in a position so that the outlet of the flexible
cuffs is located at the same height as was taught by the q
_ Is there any teaching in the patent as to any other
ro]
tion for these highly flexible cuffs? A. No, there is no
8,
48
sponds fully to all the requirements of Claim 6? A. This
_ apparatus of the Hodge patent 2,184,880 responds fully to
the requirements of Claim 6, except for the limitation that
- the’ cuff is made of highly flexible material. I might point
vut here that if a few words were removed from Claim 6,
these words “of highly flexible material,” which are under-
lined in purple on the chart, Exhibit H, and the words,
“The cuffs to yield upon impingement with an operator or '
the drawing of Hodge patent No.
2,184,880, and state whether or not that apparatus re .
\
\
other obstruction in their path of travel.” If those words _
tobert C. Senalans, Direct Examination | ce ee
were removed, these five words stating that the cuff is of
highly flexible material and the last two lines of the claim
‘as reproduced on the chart, Exhibit H, “the cuffs to yield |
upon impingement with an operator or (224) other ob-
. struction in their path of travel.” If those words are .
- stricken out from the claim, the claim. reads exactly on this.
- Hodge patent 2,184,880, and it reads exéctly.on some of the |
‘other Hodge. patents and other prior wat patents —_
than Hodge. in é
Q. Is this Hodge patent 2,184,880: ‘acknowledged in
the Holtzclaw patent? A. Yes, it is. And | other Hodge
patents. I might at this time point out that there are two
red lead lines on the right-hand side of the chart H leading
\. to the rigid section of the nozzle which is shown in the
\\ Hodge paterit 2,184,880; and I have also nded a red
, ee ‘cuff” to the rigid
Hodge patent 880.
- \It might be pertinent here to call attention to the fact
that in the Hodge patent 2,047,558 on the chart here and
sheet l\of that patent is enlarged and reproduced, is an
enlargement on this chart which I now have; and I merely —
"~—want-at this time to-call attention to the fact that the
specifications of this Hodge patent 2,047,558, call the ad-
justable nozzles which he provides “sleeves or cuffs.” The
use of this word “cuff” as describing a ‘short rigid non-
flexible outlet or \nozzle, was old and: used previously in
this Hodge patent. That word appears in the Hodge patent
558 at page 1, column 1), line 49.
‘-Q. Is it true that the cuff itself is shown in. the (225)
figure 5? A. In. this earlier Hodge patent, as in the 880
Hodge patent, there are two sleeves or cuffs on each side
of the machine which are described as being two sections |
which are attached to the, in this case, relatively short
outlet ducts 14 and 15 which lead from the fan housing 11.
-Q. Without going into detail in Hodge Patent
2,047,558, will you state whether or not the claim in suit
reads squarely on that showing, except for,the limitations —
of the flexible cuff? A. It does. read squarely on the show-
ing of the Hodge patent, with that exception. Sie:
118 of this
i, alll
ee Fe een Roliert C. Sessions, Direet Examination
-Q. fhe hint op ndgueds Chine: it reads alike on each
. ~ of these two Hodge pa tents? A: Yes.
| Q. And fails to > teed only in respect ‘to the flexible 2
_ cuff?’ A. That's right. ~
Mr. Watts: I ask that the exhibit just desctibed -
. the witness be marked as_Deferndant’s Exhibit.K. That is’
a showing of certain figures of Hodge aes 2,047,558.
The Court: That isK?
Mr. Watts: Yes, your Honor. .
\ m6 » (Defendat’ s Exhibit K is marked.)
- |<» @ ‘(By Mr. Watts) Both of these- Hodge patents ‘that
"you have just discussed were acknowledged in the patent q
> im suit,(226) were they? A. Yes.
“Q. Now, does the fact’ that'a certain part af that claim
te in suit does not find a respons’’.in either of those Hodge _
patents mark the only difference between, those prior pat-
ents and the one in suit? A. Yes.
Q. So-that any alleged infringement ‘ii in the patent in
suit, niust. be found: to reside solely in that flexible cuff
limitation? A. Yes. ) | 3
ee ee ee oe .?
(21) Q. Now, would you take up the tees at the
‘bottom: of Exhibit H. A. Here at the bottom of Exhibit H
: there has been reproduced parts of the drawings of three
Frau art patents: the Robinson patent No. 1,326,140; the
Trautvetter_patent No. 2 309, 362; and the Lantern patent
No. 2,137,9 |
Geie nt Wrident lnk de eee
flexible outlete’ or noszles which would yield upon im”
pingement Eh GER Se. eevee Oe Cage path of
travel, —. ok!
"Mr. Watts: ‘We havea he chart showing n more than -
one vow of tuto them Gate botents.. I will ask the
Clerk to mark that as Defendant's Exhibit L.
(Defendant's Exhibit L is marked.)
Q. (By Mr. Watts) “Would you discuss each of those |
three patents. in connection with Exhibit L? Before you
Robert C. Sessions, Direct Examination Farge Sta
start, I might hand up to the Court a volume of prior art
(228) patents which I will ask the Clerk to mark as De-
fendant’s Exhibit M.
(Detendant s Exhibit M is marked. )
* * * * *
The Witness: These three patents are merely three of
’ ~a number of possible evidences of the common use of
flexible portions when one wished to either direct a blast
of air or digect a flow of material at a certain point and at
- the same time avoid injury to a person, or to yield easily
when an obstacle is presented, or when there is an
. obstruction in the path of travel. -
; This first, the Robinson patent, for example, relates
to the use of flexihle nozzles at the end of the tubes or ducts .
_which supply sand beneath the wheels of a locomotive. |
_. These nozzles are directed inwardly at the point where
the sand is to be applied, and they each have a flexible end
marked 8'on the drawings. And the patent itself states in
- (229)-several places that the nozzles are flexible to move
if there is an obstruction in their path. First, in column 1
_ of the patent, starting at line 28, paragraph, ‘which reads,
(reading): “Further objects of the invention are to pro-
vide a sanding device which is simple in its construction
and arrangement, strong, ‘durable, efficient in its use, hav-
ing means to maintain it and to restore it in and to normal
position in case the discharge nozzle is shifted by an ob-
, Struction at or near the track, readily set up in operative
position, and comparatively inexpensive.”
In the second column.of page 1, at line 75, the patent
states (reading): “The pipe 3, as well as the pipe 4. has
attached to the lower end thereof. a flexible discharge
nozzle 8, and as the construction of each nozzle is the same,
-- but ¢ ‘Will be described, the description of one applying
_. to tHe other. The'nozzle 8 is formed from a flexible body,
__ preferably rubber, and is secured to the lower end of the
delivery pipe bya clamp 8a. The lower edge of the nozzle
. 8s flat.throughout and directly opposes and is positioned
in very close proximity to the tread of the track rail 6, as
Mm, Robert C. Sessions, Direct Examination
all as in very close proximity to that. wheel of ‘the loco-
motive with which the nozzle cooperates. The nozzle 8 is.
disposed at an inclination’ and extends toward that wheel.
with which it cooperates, * * *” 7
7 Starting in the succeeding paragraph the statement is
(230) made as- follows: (reading): “The flexibility of the
nozzle prevents the breakage or permanent bending there-
of\when meeting with an obstruction and the spring 9 -
* * *” Thht is the coil spring on the inside of the nozzle,
the rubber nozzle— (Continuing-to read): “‘* * * and the
spring 9, not only maintains the nozzle’8 in normal posi-
tion, so as to deliver the sand at a point in close proximity .
where the wheel engages with the track rail, but also re-
stores the nozzle to.normal position in case the ‘nozzle is —
shifted to one side when meeting with an obstruction.” _
‘Then, referring to the Lintern patent 2,137 917: This
is also a sandirig device, and in this case a sanding device
for an automobile, as shown here in figure 1. And the .
sand is conveyed through a relatively. rigid portion or duet
10 toa flexible outlet nozzle 11. :
The Court: I do not imagine they sold many of those,
did they?
The Witness: I doubt it, although I have heard that
| they are being used on trucks now. It is coming back into
_- use again.. Maybe this man was ahead of his time. I think
eee SEES SED EIS een ee ey SN ae
snow.
Mr. Watts: I think your Honor will find—
/ The Witness: This patent to Lintern also states that
: the object is to provide “a flexible discharge header and
(231) distribution conduit combination so arranged that
striking of the conduit or any part. of ‘the combination by
obstructions during movement: of. the vehicle cannot
damage the header and'conduit or the remainder of the
sanding apparatus.”
| Now, the Trautvetter patent is also a device that’s an
outlet from a toilet of a railroad car, and it's arranged with
a flexible end so that the discharge will be directed in the
ev desired and so that when. the truck of the car
Robert C. Sessions, Direct Examination : - * la
_turns, as shown in figure 2, Ce a |
the end of the nozzle will not damage the nozzle or will
not’ damage the truck. And it states that this nozzle is
“flexible and resilient” so that it can readily be deformed |
if hit by a portion of the truck in its movement.
_. * And the material is described on page 2 at line 15 of
column 1 as being (reading): “The flexible and resilient
portion 27 is preferably made of rubber reinforced by
fabric so that it normally’ retains its tubular shape,‘but is
readily pushed aside or deformed as shown at 30 (Fig. 2),
if the truck 20 swings sufficiently to strike its wall. After
such deformation it returns to normal as shown in Fig. 3.”
The Court: That is offered, I assume, for the purpose
of showing that there were cuffs and things of that kind
prior to this? .
Mr. Watts: Yes, sir, in many different. industries.
The Court: Well, we have that.
(232) Mr. Watts:. And as your Honor will recall, one
of the witnesses testified yesterday about piping air in a
spinning veem dhseugh « motel pipe and then heiving « long
hose to carry it around to the machines. *
The Court: That was the Holtzclaw? |
My. Watts: No, sir. That was the hand cleaner |
method.
Now, I offer in evidence a certified copy of the applica-
tion file im the Patent Office frein which the patent in suit
issued.
e The Court: Holtzclaw patent?
__’Mr. Watts: Yes, sir. I offer it.in evidence as Defend-
ant's Exhibit N:
The Court: All right, sir. ;
(Defendant's Exhibit N is filed.)
. Mr. Watts: And because the Norwegian patent was
cited in that case, I have obtained from the Patent Office a
+ gertified translation of the description ‘and have also at-
__ tached_photostats of the drawing.. I offer that certification -
- and prints of the patent in evidence as Defendant’s Exhibit
0. | ; |
cs
ea. | — Robert C. Sessions, Direct. Examination
"- (Defend@nt’s Exhibit O is filed.)
: Q. (By Mr. Watts) Now, would you comment very
__ briefly, Mr. Sessions, on the Norwegian patent—just, very:
| : — —— a a fe ees
(233) The Court: It is: just a matter of drawing up
dust or dirt from the roud. The whole thing is exemplified
in the nozzles that appear on the spouts of the drill. It is
one element in processing that has been used for a long
time.
Mr. Watts: 1 genes Chat cnawtien the question.
The Witness: Yes. This used a yielding nozzle g;
‘through which air was directed at the place to be cleaned.
. This Norwegian also had a suction to pick up the dirt
that is blown up by the nozzle. He had a combination of
an air blast to loosen the dirt and.a suction device to— .“
The Court: That particular factor, are those all things |
that have been used for a long time? :
_ (234) The Witness: Yes, your Honor. | | 7
The Court: In any number of things: drills and all
- sorts of spouts. —
The Witness: lnniameteble uses of flexible outlets.
The Court: Just as every-day as a woman's voice.
Q. (By Mr. Watts)’ Now, having’ in mind the prior
art as evidenced by these Hodge patents and by these other
patents showing flexible nozzles, arid also having in mind
the fact that the claim in suit differs from all those things
solely by’ the last limitation of the flexible cuff, highly
*. flexible cuff, state whether or not in your opinion anything
of an inventive character or anything more than. obvi >us-
| ness or mechanical skill was required to produce the de-
vice of the patent in suit?
Mr: Griér: I obregt on the ground it’s leading, and on
the ground it’s the ultimate. question for the Court to de-
cide.
The Court: He is expressing the opinior’ of an n expert. 7
which he.is entitled to do. Overruled. —
A. In my opinion, it definitely involves no patentable
invention. It is something that would be obvious to any-
Q. Having- those same factors in mind, state whether
or not the Holtzclaw.improvement pushed back the fron-
tiers of chemistry or physics and the like? (235) A. No, it
O did not.
?
_ Q And do you think, is it your opinion that it would
make any distinctive contributions to scientific knowledge?
A. No. > oe , Re |
Q. Now, much has been said about the development
of this spinning frame cleaning art. Have you prepared -
charts which trace that development? A. Yes. .
a ae ea
| Q. (By Mr. Watts) Will you discuss the development
- of this- industry, or this art, by reference to those three”
charts P, Q, and R, and you may pass over it relatively
(236) quickly. A. These charts are arranged chronolog-
ically. The left-hand inside of Exhibit P are reproductions
from two Smith patents, No. 1,857,410 and No. 1,920,768.
_ These yesterday were shown on photographs, and at that
time they were identified as being the Walker device. The
Walker patent itself preceded these two patents and had a
different type of nozzle. It weuld have been more correct
in discussing the photograph yesterday to call the device
the device of the Smith patent. In any event, your Honor
will see here in the first Smith patent a device for clean-
' ing spinning frames where there isa motor-driven blower
in the center and two outlet conduits extending transverse-
. ly at each side, with downwardly and inwardly curved .
. Outlets, These are rigid outlets marked 86 in the patent.
: Figure 14 in the lower right-hand corner of this sheet
g A» of the Smith patent shows a cross section of the entire
- Spinning framie with the cleaner mounted above the frame.
This cleaner was arranged to travél on a track just like
the modern-day cleaners de. The direction of air flow
is shown by arrows in that figure 14. oe
There is, also-your Honor will see in the upper middle
Of the bottom portion of the lower casing 20, which directs.
&
machine :
2 oF strei
: a ight down. It _
, was intended
(— by Hodge
; : that
| HI HH i] taegaps
Heat yt ee £1
; ligt Hit ui PAH
cae nae
ffafs 44° sl hitse ifs
apy ia: tgdags
thn iat fe Te
qn bile Hn bi
He et alate
gies STH
The ela] Wh
an a ga
] a eiviee t ije 7
HEH HEHE
rE ipeseet =s ga 4 asf HIMHIE E |
GH 1 ada gift
i j HHL fads Weaish bE : e535 -
Laan a
UF HE + i ie aigstiae
| Wi ite ae i ie the He wisileta
li
i
j
THe ar 43 tage apt: Ae rT 443,
baie ieee EEA
: aH HTH RUTH EH TE
: Lite al sqaysea? 53 ABH
TMzalg] | ity } oa Hae
ie thle TAP rete
Ue PL
F af iene
Aa HH ee
TLE fh atl rut st! geties
Q. Now, we have reviewed. the es jie these pres- .
—
Jory
= . e °
_Rebert C. Sessions, Uurect Examinaueou Ss wea
ent-day models, and we ‘have seen the limitations ih the |
_ claim of the patent in suit. I would like to know. if you
_ have considered the file history of the patent in suit? A.
Yes, I heve. Pag
* @ And did you find that the limitations in the claim week
in suit were emphasized by the specifications?
Mr. Grier: Objection. __ .
‘The Court: Overruled.
A. Yes,-I did.
ee. e rrs
the claim-in suit were put in by the solicitor after the’
citation of prior patents? A. The entire claim in suit was
put in after the citation of prior patents. -
2 Q. I didn’t state the question properly. Satelite.
ing (242) the file history of the paterit in suit—and I am .
now thinking of the original claims as well as the speci-
-fications—did you find that the claims were amended by |
including additional limitations, and that they were so +
amended after the examiner had cited prior art? A. Yes,
_ that is true.
— SUD sitsh: tte ut 0c: shite caine’ od hace Dinitn-
_ tions? A. Your Honor, if I might refer to that file? No, T
- ‘think T have an- abstract of it that I can use. |
Q. Well, we could use the Court's copy. Hore it is. A.
Mr. Grier: Sai Minnie Geet deat ean
to the fact that the file, being a written i t and in
evidence, speaks for itself?
The Court: “Yes, it is. in evidence. He was just dis :
cussing that. -
y A. In this connection, 1 merely would print out that
Q. I might simplify the matter by mentioning the ,
claims 3.to 5. A. Yes, sir. ©
- Mr. Grier: I obj.ct on the ground that 3 to 5 are not
_ Subject to this litigation.
| Mr. Watts: That’s all right, your Dine, but: they
show what the eT te a en ee
in — order to get his claims allowed. A. In claim 3,
is
ote
68a : —-- Rebert C. Sessions, Direct’ Examination .
for example, the claim as originally filed was amended
_ to state that the flexible: nozzle, the highly flexible nozzle
. | was—No. The nozzle made of impervious fabric was
curvéd, had an inwardly curved, end portion, and the |
. word “curved” relating: to the end portion is also added
by amendment to Claim 4. _ geek. iver
- As these claims were allowed, claims 1, 2 and 6, ail
> were limited to the use of flexible cuffs; and claims 3,4 —
_ end 5 were limited to the use of yieldable nozzles. Claims
‘1, 3, 4 and 5.as allowed were all limited to having inward-
ly curved flexible cuffs or nozzles; and claim 2 was limited
to having a cuff which extended downwardly and in-:
wardly. In other words, the claims were directed to the -
- use of inwardly directed cuffs and a distinction was made
between the terminology of claims 1, 2 and 6 and the
terminology of claims 3, 4 and 5 as far as the flexibility
is concerned. Claims: 3, 4 and 5 merely state that the
structure has “yieldable” nozzles, whereas claims 1, 2 and
‘6, the claim in suit, were limited to. the-use of “highly
” flexible cuffs.” ES sae 9 : .
~ Q. What did you find with respect to claim'6, which,
when it was presented to the examiner was No. 8? A. -
Claim 6 was presented to the examiner after an interview
mark or comment here that fellowes the portion I have read.
which states: “The importance of this feature has /been
2 a
Mowert &. Stasis, aces seneusee i
emphasized throughout as noted. in lines:8 to 14 of page 4, _
anid 1 to 5 of page 8 of the specifications, which, enables
_ the apparatus effectively to direct the current of air across _
the machines at a relatively low position and at the, same“
time by a flexible feature which prevents injury to the
operators of the machines.” : | 0k 4
Q. In vig of those comments, 7 whether or ‘not
it is your opinion that the highly flexible material limita-.
tion, the inwardly curved end, and the: direction or ex-
- tension of the (245) cuffs toward the machine, and the
. discharge of air across the machine were important con-
siderations in the allowance of that claim that is here in
suit? A. Yes, they were. And I might add that in addition
there I think consideration was the location of'the air
stream where it was directed across the underside of the
upper creel board was of importance in this respect. Em-
phasized there. ee Bes
- .Q. In your opinion is ‘the action and operation and
results of the portion of the apparatus down to but not.
including the flexible cuffs, is the operation and results
- of that part of the apparatus affected by the presence-of __
_ the flexible cuffs? A. Did you say “affected”? I didn’t <
quite understand. ~~ oe Es eda, :
Q.' Yes. Affected by, the presence. Do the flexible
cuffs have any. effect on the operation and results of the
_Temainder of the apparatus of the claim? A. No, no, they »
do not. Not.at all. - | 7 :
-Q. Do other parts of the apparatus, that is aside from
these flexible cuffs, do they perform the same functions
whether the flexible cuffs are present or not? A. Definite-
ly the same functions whether or not the flexible cuffs.
. are present. ; . ° ss .
Q. Does the apparatus of the first part of the claim
= the operation of. the flexible cuffs? (246) A. No, it
= not. Ste > ; eee
| _Q Would the flexible cuffs perform the same function
and operation if attached to some other. type of rigid ¢on- _ if
duit?’ A. Yes. |
ek Pee ae a:
0a Pa eg iz <a. ‘ Robert €. Sessions, Diese Examination
| “(2a7y. Q.. What is the function of. the cide. in other
werds? ‘A. It is to direct air toward: the part to be cleaned.
, Wherever one wants :to ~~ one may direct air. That’s
the purpose of the cuff. ie | |
~Q. Now, does that cuff perform any different function
~when itis. combined with this'cléaner than it does when
it. isn’t combined with it? A. ‘No, the cuff itself is merely
directing air. There is no difference. whatever in the
function. | |
: Q. .Now, Tet’s tuin to the question of infringement, .
.. Will you. discuss, please, the accused apparatus from that
standpoint? Do you find in the.accused apparatus of Ex-
_. hibit F, for example, the various elements of Claim 6 of
. apparatus is a trailer
the patent in suit? A. No, I do not find all those elements.
~Q.-Which ones are absent? A. The accused ap-
saeie~te this the one? 7
~Q. Yes, this is it. A. That i is what you wabiivied to?
—6(Q. That’ s right. A. As exemplified by Exhibit F, has. -.
a motor-driven blower but does not have means: for
propelling. the carriage (248) along the track, driven by
the same motor as the claim Rere specifies. That. accused
Bre of device, and the motor of. it
is used salely to aces the required air for a pur- iS
‘poses. » |
The dinnie: has only one outlet section on _— side.
In other words, it does not nave the two sections on eath .
side as the Holtzclaw — showed and defined in the .-
Claim 65 ee: face
Claim. 6 first. calls for the rigid section terminating
.. above head hejght of the machine operator, and then it.
calls ‘for cuffs of highly flexible material, and the claim |
- and the description descrikes the use. of one of those ele-
ments on each side.
_@ Q. You mean the rigid sections. on each side? A. One ©
rigid section "7 highly flexible section on each side.
The defendant’s ‘structure has a long duct or tube extend- .
ing downwardly, single duct on each side of the machine,
_ and that duct is not highly flexible in the way the cults
were made for the Holtzclaw machine of the type shown
- >
Robert C. Sessions, Direct Examination 4 Ta
“in the patent in suit. These ducts, as I explained yesterday.
have rigid fiber pieces on each side of them, arranged so
that they will not yield transversely of the machine. That,
‘of course, is important when such a long.tube is used be-
cause the air leaving the duct jerks, or thrusts an out-
ward: thrust, and if the duct did not have (249) that
rigidity,-it would bend out, so-that your Honor. can see
_thé¥y<ducts are so rigid in a direction transverse the ma-
_chine so that if you pull on them the entire unit bends
before the duct itself will bend. The duct itself will not
bend in that direction. It. wilf move neither toward the
‘machine nor away from the machine in the normal opera-
| tion of the device. . | |
’ I might continue here. In the device of the patent in |
: suit, the word, “cuff” itself indicates a short element and "
the description of' the patent and its drawings show a short
part which directs air at the top portion of.the. roving, or
= the roving spools, ‘below the upper creel board. “And in
used solely to dine the lower. pac and the underframe
portion of the spinning machines. The upper portion, the
spools of roving, your creel section of the machine, is.
cleaned by.an entirely different unit, the so-called tri-rail -
‘unit ofthe defendant: We have no:physical example of .
that tri-rail cleaner in court, but we have it in the cata-
logue. «6 * ae
">The tri-rail cleaner has attached to it a motor-driven
carriage and a separate motor which is:used to drive its
_ carriage along the track; and that tri-rail cleaner pulls the
~ accused structure along the track. | :
- Q. Does the accused apparatus, for example, given
as Exhibit F, show a cuff extending toward the machines
in the -(250) sense of the patent? A. The accused does
-not,.in my opinion, have such a cuff. It dees not have :
cuff, because the cuff is the word that was used and as I
understand its meaning it*relates to a short section, and
_ these ducts of the accused apparatus have no inwardly
curved portion. They do extend downwardly, but they do
’ not extend inwardly, transversely toward the machine.
72a Be ie ee ’ Robert C. Sessions,: Direct Examination
&
_ Q. Are they parallel to the. sides of the machine? A. ~
_ “Yes, they are substantially parallel to the sides of the |
machine. dip
Q. And if they -would extend toward the machine,
they would intersect it sooner ‘or later, would they not?
A. I think that was the meaning of the use of the word in
the patent in suit, because these ducts do extend toward
the mechanism of the’ machine; whereas, these ducts of the
accused structure will never, no matter how far ‘they lare’
~ extended, intercept or contact the machine itself.
‘Mr, Grier: Excuse me. | didn’t understand that ques-
tion fully. “In describing the Parks-Cramer device, did
_ you refer to our r cuffs as ducts? Would you let me hear
what he said?
The Witness: I called—These I intended t to call cuffs.
I am not sure what'I said.
Mr. Grier: I thought you called them ducts.
(251) A. Kither nozzles or cuffs, I think, is the proper ,
term. ae
Q. It was necessary, was it. not, tw turn the cuffs of
the patent device inwardly in order for the air which came
out of the end to strike the machine and blow across it?
A. Yes.: :.< : Mine |
Q. Does the accused apparatus have an open end, an
open lower end, as the patent apparatus does? A. No, not
-in the same way. It has an opening at the lower portion
which is directed downwardly, but it isn’t the entire end.
It has no inwardly curved end, which has no— |
Q. I believe you tanationed it before, but I would like
to ask one question: Contrast the parts of the spinning
frame which are cleaned by the accused apparatus on the
one hand and by the patented apparatus on the other
- hand. In- other words, does the accused apparatus clean
_ the same part of the machine as is cleaned by the patented
apparatus? A: No. I think I explained that. The accused ~
apparatus does not clean the same parts of the machine as
cleaned.by the patented apparatus. It does not ¢lean the
spools of roving and so-called creel section a of the machine, .
° . Pa : ‘ oO
. © .
&
Robert C. Sessions, Direct Examination- . a | . 73a a
and the patented apparatus is direeted : at chiening that
7 portion of the machine: 3
: (253) Mr. Watts: I-ask the Clerk to ile this draw-
_ ing as Defendant’s Exhibit S.
(Defendant S Exhibit Sis eiiiond )
Q. State what figure 6 of Exhibit S shows. A. Figure
6 is an enlargement of the same figure of the Smith patent
1,920,768; and it shows—it is a side view of the Smith.
construction, which is shown here in the middle of Ex-
nibit P.
* The Cok: This is what you might call a side view
of the front view shown on this— |
The Witness: Of Exhibit P; that’s s right, your Honor.
And it shows that this device has, in addition to the unit
~which I discussed, the portion which I discussed on Ex-
hibit-P, it has a trailer unit which has a carriage section .
marked 124 and from which it is hung by means of an arm
122, a blower unit and two nozzles 134. Those nozzles
134 are shown in the background on figure 7, which is also
shown on Exhibit P. But this shows the use of a. trailer |
with a separately driven blower. Actually, in this case
there are two blowers driven by a single motor. | |
Q. The motor that drives the trailer fans is inde-
pendent (254) of the motor that drives the carriage along ©
the track, is it not? A. Yes, it is.
Q:' And will you compare that? A. This, you might
say, is like the accused device im that respect. The accused
device is a trailer unit in which the motor is used to de-
velop. the cleaning air only and not to: propel the device
along the track; > hy 8 :
. Q What is the function of the accused trailer unit? 5 eae
_ A. The accused trailer unit functions to clean the under- |
frame and the lower portion of:the machine only. The >
unit which pulls along thé trailer unit, the tri-rail cleaner,
along, is all that is needed to cléan the portion of the frame |
of the machines above the greenboard, the creel portion of
t
74a : Robert. C. Sessions, Direct Examination
the machine;.if one did not wish to clean the under frame
portion, the trailer unit could be omitted entirely. |
~Q. Some reference was made yesterday in the plain-
tiff’s case to Exhibit 14, which shows a device referred to
~as the “elephant trunk’ cleaner. Will you compare the —
- apparatus-of Exhibit 14 kcal that of the Holtzclaw patent
in suit?
| Mr. Grier: What ¢@ you mean? The illustration. in
the Holtzelaw patent or the patent? |
Mr. Watts: The apparatus illustrated i in | the Holteclaw
_ patent. |
(255) Q. (By Mr. Watts) And point out any struc- |
tural differences you may find. A. The apparatus shown
on the photograph Exhibit 14 uses a plurality of ducts and
nozzles, outlet discharge points, direeted. to various parts
of the machine. There are two nozzles which I will mark
with the numeral 1 at ‘the center directed downwardly,
The air is discharged from an open end. There are two. |
‘nozzles, one on each side and one on the left-hand side. I
will mark them with the numeral 2. These nozzles 2 are
made of flexible material and are located in substantially
” the same position as the nozzles 19 of the Holtzclaw patent |
in suit, relative ‘to the spinning frame itself and to the
spools of roving and the upper creel board. Thefe are.on
each side also an intermediate nozzle which I will mark 3.
This nozzle 3 has an inwardly curved end and it’is posi-
tioned approximately at the level of the middle creel board.
It has a flexible end portion, but the upper portion ‘of this
nozzle has been reinforced by a reinforcing member which
.I shall mark 4. That reinforcing member resists move-
ment toward and away frem the center of the machine.) '
| There is another downwardly extending duct, or
tubular portion, which I shalt mark with a reference
_numeral.5, which extends down below the lower creel
- board and which has, I believe, three outlet openings :in it
- directed toward the (256) machines. These’ outlet open-
ings discharge air to clean the lower_portion-of the -ma- ~~
‘chine and the: underframe. The machine of Exhibit 14—.
~ Robert c. Sessions, Direct Examination , | | 75a
Q. Juat a moment. I see you are going to the other
patent. I would like to clear up one or two things. first.
‘The long tubes 5'on Exhibit 14, are they open at the bot-
tom, as the others are? A. No, as I Temember hasta are
iiot open at the bottom. - aerate
Q. Do they have holes in the. sides of them? A A A. Yes,
that’s right. at
QQ. Have you’ examined the Structure as to any of
those tubes 5? A. Yes, Ihave... © | |
| Q. And how are they scnatructed, the ones you saw? _
- A. This tube which I saw which ‘corresponds with the one ©
~ which I marked 5 on Exhibit 14 is of thick, quite stiff ma-
terial. It.will bend, but it is not in any sense of the word
. highly flexible. It has a seam in the side away from the
machine and inside of this vertical tube or ductthere is a.
reinforcing member in ‘the form of a high-pressure hose,
which does hot carry the air but which provides a stiffen-
' ing effect. to resist movement toward or away-from the
machine, and it reduces the over-all — of the 8
. tube 5,
sense (257) of the claim in suit? A. No, it does not. .
- Q.'Is it generally parallel to the side of the machine |
as in defendant’s accused apparatus? A. Yes, it is. .I
‘might add here that in one of these Parks-Cramer units
which I have observed, the rigid portion to which the tube
and a half inches above the floor level. It was about on
~ the same plane as the top creel board. This was at the |
‘A. M. Smyre Manufacturing Company at Gastonia, North
Carolina, where I made that observation. se
Q. Did you find in the—or have’ you completed your
answer? A. Ihad not quite completed.
~~ °Q. Pardon me. Go ahead. A. This device in Exhibit
14 has no- rigid. nozzles extending - downwardly : toward
the machine just the same as is ‘shown in the Holtzclaw ©
- patent in suit, although there is an opening in the upper
portion of the outlet duct which discharges air near the _
Q. Does that tube 5 intl ial the machine in the |
5 was attached terminated“at a point about five feet eight —
+ |
®
T6a . , | aa ‘Robert C. ‘Sessions, Direct Examination
center of the machine downwardly on the upper creel
board and on the trackway. | :
Q. I bélieve you stated how many different outlets: |
for air this apparatus. has, this-“elephant” trunk device?
~A- There is one completely rigid outlet and there are’ the
outlets which I have numbered 1, 2; 3 and 5. The outer
(258) tube 5 has, as I remember, three outlet holes at its
lower end. :
Q. State e whether or not you find: any benches in the
a patent j in suit of the device of Exhibit 14. A. I think the |
patent in suit certainly does not include any’ teaching as to
the construction of an underfrarne cleaner, and the patent |
in syit did not teach the use of the nozzles, such as is the
nozzle 3 here. The teaching of the patent in suit was to
the effect that one downwardly extended directed rigid
outlet and one inwardly curved flexiblé nozzle located —
suchas is the nozzle or cuff 2 of Exhibit 14 would clean
the entire creel section, the upper end or spools of roving. ~
Apparently, the plaintiff here decided that the upper.
| nozzle alone, such as ‘nozzle 2 of Exhibit 14, which would —
correspond to cuff 19 of the patent in suit, would not
clean the center portion of the creel part of the machine
and so. has here done what may be an obvious thing:
added another air outlet to direct the air where dirt would
collect. |
(262) Q. (By Mr. Watts) “Mr. Sessions, just to 0 keep
the record straight’ there and all in one piece at this par-
.ticular time, yesterday we heard testimony: as to horse-
power of the apparatus of the patent in suit, and the horse- aes.
“power of the moter-on the “elephant” trunk device in Ex-
hibit 14. In one case, it was half a. horsepower, and the .
other, one horsepower. Did you include ‘that with your
differences between those two devices? A. Yes. The ca-_
“pacity of a unit to discharge air is relatively preportionate
with the hiorsepower of the motor, so that-a unit using a
larger horsepower motor can be used to. discharge r more
air and cover a greater surface. |
‘ 4
oer
ee
‘Robert C. Sessions, Cross Examination orcs , aaa ia |
-Q. And since they used a larger horsepower. motor.
in the “elephant” trunk apparatus, that. blows a greater
amount of air, or r a greater —' of. air? A. Yes. That’s ©
right. ae \
Q. All as contrasted Sith the * apparatus of the patent ;
a 1 (263) suit? a. Yes.
is ad ‘Cross ExaMINaTION BY Mr. Grier.
Fy ale ale . al. als
oS ok : - SS 7° é
(274) The Court: ‘He said he went into two nfills, and Bez.
he found one five. feet 84% inches high, I believe, in the
Smyre Mill which, as everybody knows, would likely hit
the head of shinont anybody operating - a spinning frame
re unless she was a pretty short girl
| (285 )Q. But you testified that Mr. Holtzelaw’s con-
clusion was obvious. A. Mr. Holtzclaw. didn’t direct his
invention toward underframe cleaning. Now, as far as—
Q. You think then, in other words, that what is illus-
trated in, the drawing in the Holtzclaw patent is not so
good, but that if you went along as far as doing all that
is done in Plaintiff's Exhibit 16, which is the exhibit I
show you, that that would be quite a trick? A. I don’t
s think that was any trick either. In my opinion if one ~
‘desires to spend the money to build a bigger machine with
more nozzles and the cost of that machine can be compen-
-- sated for by saving of labor, such as if labor costs increase,
Pa
Fs
es
-
J .
.
.
wages increase, it is a very obvious thing to build a bigger,
more expensive machirie to cover more (286) area. En-—
tirely obvious and an entirely simple answer to the’ prob-
fem. bieciale angele: : } |
(298) Q. Let’s tile: the lichondants’ Exhibit F ‘nik
_ Jet me read (299) the language of Claim 6, and let me get.
you to again point out to me how it is you say it is not *
aeeieecs - Claim, 6. There is “a trackway disposed
78a os — Robert. Cc. —. Cross Examination
above and longitudinally centrally of aie machines, * * *
Do you find that cen in the defendant’s gevice: A.
Yes. ; | it ee
Q. (Reading): Gk said) cleaner having a motor
driven carriage and “a a o It has a carriage, doesn’ t
it? AL 7a. ° |
Q. And it has a fan, eas t it? A. Yes, |
Q.. And it has a motor for driving the fan? A. Yes
It doesn’t have a. motor-driven carriage. )
Q. All right. The motor for propelling the carriage is
in the tri-rail portion of the cleaner; is that right? A». Yes.
~ Q: And\I will ask you if the device shown as Defend-
-ant’s Exhibit F wouldn’ t*be useless, so far as cleaning a:
concerned, if it were not used in conjunction with the tri-
rail cleaner, for the reason that it doesn’t have any means
of its own for propelling itself along the track? A: Another
means could be used. ~
Q. Like pulling it eng? A. Something or - other, yes.
You wouldn’ t need a‘tri-raijl cleaner.
(300) Q. ‘The practice of the American Monorail
| Company is to install it in conjunction with the tri-rail -
cleaner similar to that illustrated - on Plaintiff S Exhibit
No. 2. Is that true? A. Yes. |
sae Q. And the motor in the tri-rail drives it along the »
track, doesn’t it? A. Yes, one of them does. —
| Q: So that if this particular device indicated by De-
fendant’s Exhibit F be considered by itself, it will not clean
because it has got no way. to go along thé track. Is that
right? A. It will not do the job of cleaning unless it is
moved along. the track; that is right. | a
Q. Yes. And when you use it in connection with
the tri-rail cleaner and consider ‘it and the tri-rail as a
unit, then it does have a motor driven carriage and fan.
Is that right? A..Well, it does not have this motor driven |
carriage to which this claim is restricted. The inventor
in getting his patent chose to use restrictive language in
this claim. Language could have been used and was used
in some. of the prior patents to Hodge, for example, which .
was not restricted to a single motor, although in some of ©
a
Robert C. Sessions, Cross’ Examination Se -* <i | Wa
2
the claims in the prior patents to Hodge I believe language |
was used which (301) was restricted i in this same manner
- to a single motor for driving the carriage and the fan.
~ Q. To make it clear, then, you. find some distinction
in the fact that this device marked F doesn’t have its own
motor for propelling it along the track? A. That’ s one of. fg
the details of this claim. That’s right.. |
Q. It does have a fan casing, does it not? A casinig en-
closing the fan? A. Yes. i
‘Q. Does it have an inlet and ‘oppositely positioned |
outlet conduits? A. Yes.
Q. Do the conduits present a-rigid section dirninating Be
| pte. the heads of the machine operators when standing? -
-_ A. Yes. Well, Iam sorry. No, they do not. The conduits ©
are rigid, but this element -of this claim relates to the
rigid outlet, an opening, which ‘terminates above, and
this structure of the. plaintiff’s, the accused structure, has .
only one outlet duct and that outlet does not terminate, |
has: no opening which is rigid. It doesn’t have the two |
outlet sections on | each side of the device « of the patent in
suit...
Q. ‘bees i to: , Plaintiff's Exhibit 19, which is the
American Monorail. Company’ s ‘new cleaner for. solving’
the entire cleaning problem,” I will ask you to look at it
and (302) see if the outlet indicated on that drawing as
“No. 2 isn’t a rigid. outlet terminating above head height —
such as described in the claim? A. Yes.. That’s not the”
outlet of the accused. structure, however. ie
©. Are the conduits at each side on this Exhibit F.
provided with a cuff in the: defendant’s device? A. No, {
don’t think—In my opinion, they are not. ©. °°." *
Q. You say this isn’t a cuff? A. — S right.
Q. That it’s too long? A. Yes.
| Q. Would you agree that it’s a sleeve? A. It might be
‘called a sleeve. I think it’s a duct or a tube. .
| Q. But you think a sleeve would pass for it? A. It is.
not of highly flexible material i in the sense of the patent - in
~~ suit.
Q. Watch, bat happens when I walk by it : and indi- 5
80a bea oa , | Robért C. 5s pee Cross Examination
cate whether or not it yields. A ‘Yes, it doés yield. I ex-
_ plained that. a. }
| Q. I will ask you if it does not extend from its utmost’.
position in the general direction of the machine? A. No.
It extends down the side of the machine. |
. @Q. You draw a distinction between the fact that it
(303) comes down parallel to the: machines against the .
fact that it would*be directed so as ta run smack into them? .
A. Thats right., I think that the patent, which seems to. | -
be the basis of this claim, showed and taught the use of .
a flexible cuffs which had an. inwardly curved end.
at— :
Q. Let me ask wei about that inwardly curved end.
_ Look: at Claim 6 and «ee where you find anything about
~ Claim 6 having an inwardly curved end. A. No, it does
not. It says it extends toward the machines. |
| @. I will ask you to read on and see if the purpose of
them extending toward the niachine is not “to .enable
currents of air produced by the fan and discharged through _
the cuffs to be difectedeagainst the machines and the cuffs
- to yield upon impingement with. an operator or other ob-
struction in their path of travel.” From that language,
wouldn’t you say that if the cuffs, sleeve, tube or duct is
positioned in such a way that it enables currents of air.
: _-prediced by the fan and discharged to be directed against —
. ‘. the machines that it would satisfy the requirement of the
‘prior language that it be- toward the machines?
(No response. ) |
‘Q. In other words, isn’t the purpose cal the on a
“toward the machines” to indicate the direction in which
_.it (304) pointed in order to. get the air directed against
* the. machines? A. Yes. I think it meant transversely
' across the machines and meant that the cuffs were ex-
tended toward: the machines ‘so that the air would be ~ |
directed against the part of the machines to be cleaned;
_ and this long. duct of the accused structure has no portion |
in itself which is directed against or toward the machines.
*k * *K * *
on
- Robert C. Sessions, Cross Examination ee see Sla
(305) Q. Refer in column 3 at line 56 to the portion of
the patent that says (reading): ‘Preferably the sleeve or
nozzle 19 comprises a cuff of suitable woven fabric which
. . desirably is impregnated’ with suitable material to make |
it impervious to the blast of air passing therethrough and
is a ided with means for retaining it in expanded condi-
tion.” \As an engineer and an informed man, don’t you
think that from that language and from other language in. ©
the patent that you could have built a cuff that would have —
enabled it to direct the currents of air as.directed in the
patent and-to have yielded: upon impingement with an.
operator or other obstruction ‘so as to have performed the
_ functions of the patent? A. I think I would have had to |
experiment first to determine how much flexibility, the .
. amount of flexibility or lack of flexibility, or the amount of.
_ rigidity that was needed for such a cuff, depending upon
the pressure and (306) volume of air being handled and
things of that sort, and the operating conditions, all of
which will influence and affect the flexibility which could |
be used satisfactorily. | ,
~ Q. You.could have made one that wad have worked _
all right, couldn’t you? A. I say, after some ee
tion I might have done that.
Q. The first, one would have been pretty close? A. I
don’t know. 3 |
© . (309) Q. And the other patents you testified about
were the Hodge patents that were cited in the. patent so’
the trial examiner must have. seen those? A. Yes. I tes-- -
tified about the Smith patents also which were not cited _
by the Patent Office. (— | |
es
| (310) Q. You spoke of having ‘meial the height
- above floor level of the plaintiff’s* device at Smyre Com-
_ pany and finding it at one point five feet eight and a half
"inches. - Did you meaure it at some other points, or only
_ atthatone? A. That was the height above the floor? —
o
.
ic“,
Yel
Sa “ Lloyd R. McEac¢hern, Direct Examination
| Q Yes. A. I think the floor was fairly level every-
where. I think that would have been approximately the
same everywhere. You mean, wherever the device hap-
... pened to be? You mean, at other positions 1 in the path, of
travel of this cleaner? |
Q. Yes. A. I think that was ieisk the height every-
eam because I believe the machine was level and the
floor was level, and the track was level, so the measure:
ment I madé would apply to all positions of the cleaner. _
(311)-Q. You only measured it.out at that one point? |
. I did measure it at two or three different—I measured :
; while it was moving.
Q. Oh, I see. A. And, ofc ‘course, I walked along with
2s and I did that on two or three occasions.
| Q. You measured it. while the machine was in ~ ee
tion? A. Yes.
eo
‘Q. And you took your measurements : ‘only on one
~- machine and there were other machines and other track-
ways in. that same spinning room, I believe? #. There
_ ‘are other machines and other trackways, yes.
Q. Could you tell— ®A. (Continuing) —I believe I
“measured two of those machines, however.
Q. While the machine was in operation? A.. Yes. My |
measurement might ha.~ been off an inch either way.
I mean, my measurement was indicated between five feet
eight and five feet nine inches.
| ok “~~ i aa ;
(312) -
Luoyp R. McEacuern, called as a witness by and on
_. behalf of the Defendant, being first duly s sworn, was ex-
| amined and testified as follows:
Direct ExaMINATION By Mr. Watts.
Q. Will you state your full name, age and place of
»» residence, please. A. Lloyd Richard McEachern. Age
36. I live at 200 Sunset Drive, Greenville, South Carolina.
Lloyd R. McEachern, Direct Examination . : | | 83a -
Q. What is ycur present occupation? A. I dispense
the duties of American Monorail Company in the State of
South Carolina. ~ 3 |
(316) Q..I call your attention to_Defendant’s Exhibit
F, that has been referred to as a trailer, as you are aware.
Does the defendant have any other apparatus which might
‘be termed as a trailer? A. Yes, we-have several items.
Q. Would you name them? A. Well, besides this un-
derframe cleaning device, we have a frame cleaning device
- -and a ceiling cleaning device, and, several not only that
operate from this particular type of rail, but also from over-
_ head supported rail and—You jue referred to the textile
‘industry?
Q. Yes, we might limit ourselves ‘to that. We will
'. (317) cover the other industry general material han-
dling— A. By material handling we have many devices |
‘that are trailers that perform many different functions. ©
7 Q. Does Exhibit. 19 illustrate several devices, none of
which is. rr A. None of. which are self-pro-
pelled.
Q. Which ones on » that exhibit are not self-propelled?
A. Well, of the three items that we find here, the creel
cleaning: devicp i is not self-propelled. — .
Q. That’s|the first one. A. That’s right.
Q. That’s' the tri-rail cleaner, is it? A. That’s the —
tri-rail cleaner. The ceiling cleaning device, which is
shown second, is not self-propelled; and the device shown: _
third, which is the underframe cleaning unit, is not self-
| propelled. ay | |
Se | Are those different Pree hesieedl siseittaoe in
some way? A. They are tied together when. the occasion
demands it, when the customer demands it, or when the
customer desires it, or when it will serve a specifi¢ purpose.
- Q. And how do you tie them —* A. We tie.
“them together with a draw bar. |
| Q. Just a straight metal bar? A. Straight metal bar.- -
(318) Q. What propels that train of these several
ail
$4a ‘ oe Lloyd R. McEachern, Direct Examination
units? A. We have standardized on a small tractor which ‘—
can be attached to any one of those three devices. |
Q. And how does that propel the train? A. Through .
a gear head motor and a V belt, steel on steel: . - |
Q. And a wheel. running on top of the tri-rail? ‘A,
That j 1s correct. | i
*K oS *k °
-
'.Q. Did" you lose any orders for textile cleaning. ma-
chinery and specifically spinning frame cleaning —
~ ment this past year to plaintiff?
(321) The Court: I think he has answered it... He
can if he has not already done:so.
Q. (By Mr. Watts) Did you? A. Yes, sir.
| Q. Have you any direct knowledge of threats —
to one of your customers as the result of which you were ©
‘not given the order for the spinning frames and the Parks-
Cramer Company did obtain it? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Grier: Object. . | os
The Couri: I do not ‘sec the ee of that, be-
cause the inquiry itself is largely upon whether or not
your alleged infringing machine has to do with uepreda-
"tions against his. admitted patent. That is about the whole |
item we have for determination.
Mr. Watts: I thought I was entitled to entdeniie.
‘shall we say, Mr. Grainger in his threat, and that was s what
- (322) I was. planning. ais
The Court:.You cannot want a better evidence than —
admission against interest, and that is what he did.
| ‘Mr: Watts: I think there is much i in what your Honor ~
_ Says.
The Court: If a ‘fellow. admits ma did aii: you.
would not want any better evidence than- that. It may
fake you a week to prove it, and he can tell you in the ©
twinkling of an eyé if he did it. -
- Mr. Watts: As he did. ~
Lloyd R. McEachern, Cross Examination oa 85a -
* The Court: That is right. He was very frank about
Gk oes | : ; |
Cross EXAMINATION By Mr. Grier.
Sores oo oo he Ks
(332) Q. (By Mr. Grier) Does the loom cleaner
which ‘you have installed. in the Monarch Mill in Union, -
South Carolina, operate on a a track? (333) A. bei X ‘sir, a3 ae
‘ open ates on a-trackway.
-Q. Over a series of looms? A. Yes. |
Q. And does it consist of a fan? Does it have a fan? a
A, It is’ rather complicated. It blows, yes. |
Q. And the fan is in a casing, is it not?. A. Yes.
| Q. And it has some means attached to it for pro-
pelling it along the track? A. Yes. 3
Q. And the metal outlets through which the air is
blown terminate above head height, do they? ia They do
/. not.
Q. They do not in your loom diame? A. No. |
Q. They extend how far toward the floor, would you
say? A. They are exactly five feet eight. and_a half from. |
. the floor:
| Q: All right. They are 5 ave feet aut and a half from |
the floor? A. That’s right. | :
>. Q. And to those has been atbached flexible sleeves? 3
A. I wouldn’t call it a flexible sleeve; no. | 7
. Q. Has there been attached to it a sleeve ttn to
the one which:is attached to Exhibit F? (334) A. No.
-Q. Describe the: sleeve that has been attached... A.
The item that has been atiached is made outof a very.
heavy gasket material, and it is conically shaped. with the
apex cut off, and it doesn’t yield very much upon hitting
anyone.
Q. Would it yield to such an extent. that it would not.
hurt them if it hit them? A. No, I don’t think there is any _
advantage over a metal cuff; in fact, we had metal cuffs on
them. : |
86a - ee oat : _ Lloyd R. en Cross Examination
Q. Answer the seinen ‘Would it yield to such an
| extent that if it came in contact with some person leaning»
over the loom it would not hurt them? A. No, I think it
would give them a pretty good. wallop. .
Q. You think rather than the sleeve bending it b-aiealid |
knock them away? A. I believe it would, yes, sir.
Q. That is not flexible if it doesn’t do that. You say
you first-had metal cuffs? A, We first had metal cuffs, yes.
Q. What was the occasion for putting this other type
“——-—- sleeve which you have described? A. Well, we didn’t have
- the’ size that we wanted, and we simply made up these
things in our office and put them on there with the correct .
length we wanted.
i (325) Q. So the flexible aie as an sidition to the
loom ‘cleaner is something you just made up as a tempo-
rary expedient? A. We made it up for that particular :
application because it was quick to do and. we made it
the size we wanted, |
—_——
a peta eee
4
po.
a
-_
—rTet
=
r——4
a
=
i me:
uo”
-
3
—_ _—
~~ ~ -
~- 2°
—
a ews
i TR
om
— A
— - —
——_
os
ae aan ome
A ~ om
— ~ -
(—
Ci now —
4
Cena : --
oe -
gues — =:
[on
—s —_
y a i
~ -
~-
ee <a -.
ow
—
nee
es ~—
aw - -
—
~~
,
al
.
,
teal , simpieiat om padhe apm
Le RE EI AERTS :
er 6
5 orca ra se
@
%
| | Sa
| PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 12. ei Nahe eae
Oct. 10, 1950 G.B.HOLTZCLAW . —— 2,524,797 ©
Ce TRAVELING CLEANER FOR TEXTILE MACHINES OR THE LIKE
Filed Dec. 12, 1947 2° Sheets-Sheet 1
a ss:
‘PRAM LII#?. iG
y=
yy cree res
mangoes |
a 93a
i. | |
| Oct. 10, 1950 «GB. HOLTZCLAW ©. 2,524, 797
TRAVELING CLEANER FOR TEXTILE MACHINSS OR THE LIKE
Filed Dec. 12, 1947. | a | _- 2 Sheets-Sheet 2
Fmy.2. ae
il
a
: 12
‘Seen eeeeaue«
os oS 7 (8 GHowe5es: B. HodttlzCiaut,
éae 4 Kerra Srrik £4 lan acnnaminnly
| SheLos s2e755
OY BON BEEP AL Eee
4 ae
vie, > Wait tiiey VA
- + te Peemene:
| Patented Oct. 10, 1950
me ©
UNITED
| 95a
2,924,7 97
STATES PATENT OFFICE —
2,524,797
TRAVELING CLEANER FOR TEXTILE
MACHINES OR THE LIKE
Grover B. Holtzclaw, Charlotte, N. C., assignor to ‘
Parks-Cramer Company, Fitchburg, Mass., &
corporation of Massachusetts
Apesenten December 12, 1947, Serial No. 791, 349
(Cl. 15—812)
’ 6 Claims.
ee 1 se
This invention relates to improvements in
traveling cleaners for textile machines or the like
in which the traveling cleaner comprises a-
carriage having a motor and a rotatable fan
mounted upon ‘ trackway extending longi-
tudinally above and centrally over a plurality of
‘machines which are arranged in longitudinal
alinement. Means operable by the motor are
respectively provided for propelling the carriage
along the trackway and for rotating the fan.
A housing which surrounds the motor is provided _
with outlet conduits for currents of air produced
by the fan arranged transversely of the direction
of travel of the cleaner and extending downward-_
-ly and outwardly. The end /of each conduit is
provided with means respectively to direct a blast
ininatie. of air, or upon mechanism for the ma-
terial being treated located closely therebeneath.
For example, in the use of the traveling cleaner
for cleaning .a spinning frame.blasts of air are
not fully effective in preventing accumulation of |
lint ‘and tHe like upon the lower face of the:
creel board and ‘upon the spools of roving located
closely therebeneath and the deposition or ac-
cumulation of bunches of. lint upon the roving
running from said spools.
- One of the objects of the invention is to provide
a traveling cleaner of the type described with
a nozzle for more effectively directing the current
of air which is projected transversely across the
machines at a predetermined height thereby
' more effectively to prevent accumulation of lint,
of air downwardly upon the side of the machine —
therebeneath and to direct a blast.of air trans-
versely across the machines as the cleaner travels
_ along the trackway..
In usual installations of textile machines a.
plurality of series of longitudinally alined ma-
chines are arranged in parallelism with the sec-
tion of the trackway extending longitudinally of
the machines of each series and connected to the
trackway -of another series by U-shaped bends to
provide a continuous trackway over all the
machines. :
Groups of such parallel series are also ar-
ranged in longitudinal alinement with aisles be- ;
tween the ends of the respective groups through
which the operatives pass frequently in attending
to the machines.
Typical traveling cleaning mevhenion and the
arrangement thereof of the character above de-.
scribed are disclosed in.the following patents
granted to William B. Hodge, Nos. 2,047,558 July
14; 1936, 2,128,207 August 23, 1938, and 2,184,880
December 26, 1939, and therefore need not be
illustrated and described in.detail as the present
invention relates only to improvements in the
mechanism for directing the blasts of air de-
livered by the fan. In-usual'traveling cleaners of
the type above described the end of each air con-
duit which extends from the fan casing is pro-
vided with two preferably: @djustable sleeves or
nozzles one of which directs the blast of air down-
wardly upon the side of the machine therebe-,
neath and the other of which directs the blast
of air transversely across the machine.
the sleeves or nozzles usually terminates above
Each of. ;
etc. upon such stationary parts of the machine |
- and upon the material being treated thereby.
Another object of the invention is to provide
a highly flexible nozzle or nozzles particularly
_that.for transmitting the current of air trans-
. Shown in the drawings-as employ
- versely across the machine which will yield upon
impingement with an obstruction in the path
thereof such as the presence of an operator in the .
aisle between adjacent groups of machines therc-
by preventing injury to the operator. '
These and other objects and features of the
invention will more fully appear from the follow-
ing description and the accompanying oe
and will be partjcularly pointed out/in the‘clatz
An illustrative embodiment of the invention is
| for cleaning
a textile machine, in which,
Pig. 1 shows an end elevation of a spinning
machine and trackway mounted thereon sup-
porting a traveling cleaner and illustrating the
present invention as embodied in said -cleaner
. for directing a current of air transversely across
the tov.of the machine and is ineffective in satis- —
.factorily preventing deposition or accumulation
of lint and the like upon rigid parts of the ma-
chines not located in the direct paths of the
the machine at a predetermined height; .
Fig. 2 is an enlarged detail view, partially in
transverse vertical section; and showing in eleva-
tion a preferred form of fiexible nozzle for direct-
ing the blast of air transversely of the machine;
Fig. 3 is a transverse sect ional view on line
3—3 Fig. 2; and, ,
Fig. 4 is a diagrammatic plan view of a group
of parallel series of alined/ machines with an end- -
less trackway extending lohyitudinally over the
machine and traveling cleaner mounted thereon
and an aisle between alined groups of machines.
The spinning.machine is of a usual character
comprising end frames { having standards 2
mounted thereon supporting the usual creel
boards 3 and 4 with spools of roving § there-
between and posts. 6 extending upwardly from
96a
- 9,094,707
. the standards 2 supporting B iii 1 which
as above. described extend longitudinally of a
plurality of or an alined series of spinning frames.
A motor driven. carriage 8, which has wheels 8.
mounted upon.parallel angle bars (@ extending
longitudinally of and forming part of the track-
way, is driven by a motor. A preferably hori-
zontal fan {{ is mounted upon a vertical shaft
extending upwardly from the carriage 8 and is
driven by the motor therein. A preferably cylin-
drical casing 12, which encloses the fan, is pro-
vided at its upper end with a central air inlet
13 and has at its lower end downwardly and
- outwardly extending and downwardly converg-
ing conduits 14 and (8 for conducting currents
of air produced by the fan. The fan casing is
4
through the aisle between adjacent alined series
10
of machines such as are illustrated in Fig. 4 of the
drawings.
It will be understood that the particular em-
bodiment of the invention shown'and described
herein is of an illustrative character and not re- ©
strictive and that various changes in form, con-
struction and arrangement of parts may be made
within the spirit and scope ' of the following
claims. °
Having thus described the invention, what is
claimed as new, and desired to be secured by
_ Letters Patent, ts:
15
also provided adjacent the carriage with. outlets .
16, diametrically disposed adjacent the carriage
8, which are provided with adjustable dampers {7
for controlling and directing downward currents
of air upon the machines therebeneath.
Each of the conduits 14 and 16 has preferably
adjustably secured to its lower end a downwardly
extending sleeve or nozzle {8 for directing the
blast of air |therefrom downwardly upon the side
of the machine therebeneath and also a down-
_ wardly extending sleeve or nozzle {8 for directing
~ ga current of air transversely across the machine.
The conduits (8 and 18 are so disposed as to pro- ©
vide a leading and a trailing nozzle for each of
the conduits (4 and {5 and the leading and trail-
' 1. The combination with. a waveline - cleaner. .
for blowing lint, dust, and other foreign particles
from. longitudinally alined machines having a.
trackway disposed above and longitudinally cen-
-trally of said machines, said ¢leaner having a
20
25
30
ing nozzles are reversely arranged upon the con- |
duits (4 and (6.
In the present invention either or. both of the
nozzles may be of highly flexible material adapted
to yield upon impingement of an obstruction in
‘the path of travel of the nozzles., Preferably the
nozzles {8 of the machine are of rigid material
and terminate at such height as not to engage
an .obstruction such as an operator passing
through the aisle between groups of machines.
35
40
The nozzle 18, which conducts the blast of air | -
transversely of the machines, is of highly flexible
material and extends well below the «nd of the
nozzle 18 and is provided with an inwardly curved
and preferabby tapering end portion which is
positioned at such prédetermined height as to
direct the air inwardly beneath the creel board 4
thereby to prevent accumulation of lint upon
the under face of the creel board or upon the
spool of roving & and the strand 28 leading
therefrom through ‘the usual guide eye 2! and
drawing mechanism 22 to the ring rail 23 having
the usual ring: and traveler for spinning and
winding the strand 26 upon the bobbin 24.
Preferably the sleeve or nozzle {$8 comprises a
cuff of suitable woven fabric which -desirably is
45
50
55
impregnated with suitable material to make it--
impervious to the blast of air passing there-
through and is .provided with means for retaining
it in expanded condition. As illustrated in Fig. 3
the end 26 of the cuff is folded around a thin
ring 26 of rigid- material which is permanently
secured within the folds thereof. The cuff may
be of anv desired length *v position its outlet
at such predetermined. height as to direct the
current ‘of air transversely across the machine
closely beneath the creel board of the spinning
frame, or beneath similar obstructions in other
machines, thereby effectively to prevent or re-
move accumulation upon parts thereof which .
otherwise would obstruct such transverse blasts
of air. The cuff of flexible materia! will yield
upon impingement with any obstruction in its
path such as the presence of an operator passing
60
motor driven carriage and fan with means op-
erable by said motor for propelling the carriage
along the trackway and for rotating said fan, a
fan casing enclosing the fan having an inlet and —
oppositely positioned downwardly and laterally .
extending outlet conduits terminating above the
machines for currents of air produced by the fan,
and each of said conduits having at its end rigid
means for directing a blast of air downwardly
the sides of the machines therebeneath,
of means for directing a blast of air transversely
across the machines comprising a cuff of highly
flexible material extending downwardly from one
of said outlet conduits and provided with an in- |
wardly curved end portian directed across the
machine at a predetermined height. ~
2. The combination with. a traveling cleaner,
for: blowing lint, dust, and other foreign particles
from longitudinally alined machines having a
trackway disposed above and longitudinally cen-
trally of said machines, said cleaner having a
motcr driven carriage and fan with mea
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.