The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-11-12

Woodwork souldiug Planning Machines.

e.
This was al action for damages on account OF an
aneeed infringement Of patent by the defendants
The patent IN question is for making wood mould
ings by machinery, and was originally issued 20
Alfred I Serrell, on the 10Th day of May, 1913 1t
subsequently, surrendered for detective spe,i6-
cation, and re issued on the 7th day of January,
1901. Under this last patent, the plaintiff, Claw
renee this sut as assignee Of Serrel for the
eastern hall OF this city, within which the alleged
infringement OF the defendants took place
some evidence was introduced on the part OF the
plaintiff tending to show that the invention OF Ser
rell dated back far as the fall OF 1916. That
since thst time the making of carpenters mould
ings by machinery had grown into very general USE
and that great saving OF material, as well as OF
labor, had been effected by the introduction OF the
plaintifis and other similar machines. The defend
anus are engaged in the moulding planning business,
and evidence was introduced showing their use Of
machines substantially like and similar to Serrelps
The counsel for the plaintiff then rested
One of the defendants counsel in opening the de-
renee to the jury, remarked that there were many
good grounds Of defence to the action of the plain
tiff, both technical and otherwise One was that
6erren had not complied with the provisions of
the patent law by describing clearly and exactly
the supposed invention made by him, or the manner
of making and using the same, SO rs to enable
pcrton skiuedin the art make and use his alleged
discovery That SerrelPs specification and drawings,
81 the FIRST appearance, were infinitely complex and
obscure, resembling rather description Of ntri
safe steam engine than a simple planning machine.
HIS specification appeared to be full of prolixity,
dunoancy, inconsistency, and ambiguity; and it
was very difficult to ascertain, from careful
peIusal OF it, what indeed Serrell did discover
claimed to have discovered That it would be salts
tactory proved to the jury by conclusive inferences
that all these additions were made for the purpose
Of deceiving the public, and Disgusting his infringe
ment and violation Of other and existing patenes.
The machine, however, in fact, patented by him,
CONSISTED simply of rotating planes cutters of the
require pattern for the moulding to be planned, in
combination with pressure roller, and q pressure
bar block, stationary plane, for the purpose of
pnftn a
cutters. The only apparent novelty or improve
neht in the whole machine was the adoption and
use Of serrated, copcal, or bevilled pressure
roller, instead OF the ordinary cylindrical pressure
roller to hold down and feed in angular bevilled
material, in order to economic the for mould
ing purposes The alleged invention of Nj Ssrrell
resolved ittelf simply into this, and nothing m 're
and he could not sustain his claim to this conceal
pressure roller his whole patent was deusion and
fraud upon the public. Mr.. Mootry, in behalf Of
the defendants, further insisted that even a
conical pressure roller, in the same combination,
was not new That it would be clearly proved, that
from 1S43 TO 1915, similar planning machine was
in in this city, belonging to Mr. Horace V. Sig
Ter, and nsed by him 81 that time for planning his
moudings, period of ut least Eve years before the
date OF Scrolls patent and at least three years be-
fore the earliest assumed date of his invention That
NJ, Sigler's machine had serrated eonical or be.
villcd pressure roller, intended and used to hold
down and feed in angular or diagonal material for
moulding purposes, and that Mr. Sigler at that time
invariably sawed his material into angular forms,
be plaped in order to economze the same, so as to
enable him to make two moudngs out of one piece Of
wood That this machine was In continue ed and sue
cessful use for about three years. and that fact aid
be proved to the jury by the evidence Of Mr Sigler
himsef by Mr. Howe, his foreman at that time under
whose personal inspection the machine was erected,
md by several of his workmen who were familiar
with Its successful and construction. IT, there
fore it could be proved that this machine was not
mere experiment, or for trial. aud sha. il never
was abandoned or given up but was an actual, run
nipg successful machine, in daily for years. and
always doing satisfactory work, and that it was
substantially like and similar to the machine long
afterwards patented by Mr.. Serrell, then Sereel's
patent was void Tor want o! originality But not
only xond the defendants prove the successful use
and similarity of Mr. Sigler's machine, but they
would also prove that Mr. Serren was in
the habit of visiting Mr.. SigleTs shop
IT that time, and must necessarily have
would, therefore, be strong, that there Serre
first obtained the idea of his subsequent pretended
invention OF the serrated coniea roller in the
combination But the defendants did not RELY en-
tirely on sigler's machine. They would prove CON
elusively toe successful Of many other similar
machines, embracing the combination of the al
legged invention of Mr.. Serrell, long prior to his
patent. The machine known the ''Ansoa ma
chine was substantially identical with Serrel's,
and yet the present Honorable Judge sitting in this
court enjoined the same, in 1878, infringement
Of the Woodwork patent.
But, setting asiie all these deesnces, Mr..
Nootry further insisted that the whole of Serreis
pretended invention was embraced and described in
thc patent issued to William Woodwork in 1923,
Tor . new and useful improvement in the method Of
planning, tongueing, growing, and cutting into
mouldngs, wood and other N aterial. This maoaae
Tor pRDiug consists of q combination of rotating
planes cutters with pressure rolcrs or any anal
gous device. Many attempts had been made before
his tine to use rotating planes for blaming pur-
poses but all were cessiul, be ,ause the board
chartered and vbrnted under the action Of the cut
ters that thus destroyed and ruled IT, The idea
a ha
hind, tLese cutters, to control the material against
the actien Of the cutting kpves, and at the same
time feed II through the machine Grst occurred to
WOODWORK: and the result perfect placing
machine that has been in successful use from 1928
20 the present time, uurivaled and uDs Irpassed
The history Of this patent is almost romance,
taking into consideration the long and severe lit-
cations 1t has passed through, aud its uniform tr-
umpbaut success in all. The Wooi-orth mschine
is pow in common for planning l. surfaces such
as foor plank, and by simply altering the form Of
the edge OF the knives the reversed SD ape Of the
moulding desired, n Woodgorth m pudding planning
machine is produced, involving the same essential
combination claimed by Ssrrell. TO make this
change required neither skill nor invention, bat
simple ordinary mechanical tact, which was wholly
unp4tentable Woodgorth claimed 30 particular
form Of roller, nor did he claim any particular
method OF feelings but he claimed the Din .ion
OF rotating planes with controlling pressure, for
planning purposes, matter bow that controlling
pressure was produced, whether a eJnireal or
copical pressure roller, or q bar, a spring, was
used 70 effect tha. purpose, Nov. the Serrell ma
chine bad precisely the same combination, and was
therefore totally devoid OF originality nove;y
The defendants would also prove that Scroll, the
pateptee, had recognized this fact. by asking and
obtaining verbal permission, about the time he
commenced operating his machine from the owners
ct the Woodwork patent IN this city, to run
and operate the same under that patent,
and had repeatedly assured parties DESTROYS
Of buying his machines that no danger or
trouble was to be spprehended from Mr.. Wilson or
Mr.. Van Hook, the then owners Of the Wooisorth
patent Besides, when he first obtained his PATENT
he claimed the combination of rotating cutters,
with pressure roller and q stationary plane, and at
that time placed the chief novelty aud value Of his
invention on that stationary plane. Having been
beaten by Joseph Ritter, in 1919, in the only It'll
gated trial ever had under his patent he abandoned
wisely this stationary plane, and, in 1851, in .
Issued patent throws himself back on his serrated
eonical pressure roller. Il further contended,