Case Name: BROWN v. CRANE CO.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1904-10-13
Citations: 133 F. 235
Docket Number: No. 1,061
Parties: BROWN v. CRANE CO.
Judges: Before JENKINS, GROSSCUP, and BAKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 133
Pages: 235–237

Head Matter:
BROWN v. CRANE CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
October 13, 1904.)
No. 1,061.
1. Patents — Anticipation—Coke-Making Machine.
The Grant patent, No. 513,998, for a core-making machine, is void for anticipation by prior machines for making tiles which were mechanically and functionally identical, and used in an art which is broadly analogous ; both relating to the shaping of tubular bodies from earthy materials reduced by water to plastic and cohesive conditions, differing in degree only.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the Northern District of Illinois.
On final hearing appellant’s bill to enjoin appellee’s alleged infringement of letters patent No. 513,998, February 6, 1894, to Grant, assignor, was dismissed for want of equity. Brown v. Crane Co. (C. C.) 125 Fed. 34.
The patent is for a core-making machine. The claim alleged to have been infringed is the third, as follows: “(3) A core-making machine consisting of a hopper, F, located adjacent to and supplying material to a tube, D, having within it a worm, E, for forcing material out through the tube, D, an aperture, H, within said worm, and a wire, G, held in a fixed position, passing through said aperture, H, and terminating beyond the end of said worm, E, for the purpose of forming a hole in the body of the core for the escape of the gas.”
Appellee, to sustain its contention that the machine of claim 3 was anticipated by the prior art, introduced 13 patents, including No. 25,687, October 4, 1859, to Tiffany; No. 37,112, December 9, 1862, to Sault; No. 62,914, Marchi 12, 1867, to Woodcock; and No. 89,878, May 11, 1869, to McKenzie.
Walter H. Chamberlin, for appellant.
Thomas A. Banning, for appellee.
Before JENKINS, GROSSCUP, and BAKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
BAKER, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). Cores were made by hand from the beginning to the introduction of appellant's machine. The machines, as we understand, are not used to manufacture cores for sale, but are themselves sold to foundries to supersede therein the hand-making of the required cores. Down to 1903 appellant placed about 350. The advantages of the machine method are not questioned.
As early as 1859 Tiffany produced a tile-making machine, the description of which may he read upon appellant's claim 3 as follows:
"A tile-making machine consisting of a hopper, F, located adjacent to and supplying material to a tube, D, having within it a worm, E, for forcing material out through the tube, D, and a wire, G, held in a fixed position and terminating beyond the end of said worm, E, for the purpose of forming the hole in the body of the tile."
Neither Tiffany nor appellant's assignor specified the relative diameters of tube and wire. Some tiles have thicker walls and smaller internal diameters than others, but neither Tiffany nor another could, claim invention in changing the relative diameters of tube and wire from those shown in Tiffany's drawings. Appellant's witnesses prove that appellant's machine makes holes in the cores larger than in hand-. made cores, and that there is no fixed, required relation between in ternal and external diameters, except that the walls shall be thick enough not to cave in of their own weight. Tiles are formed of clay in a plastic, cohesive condition. Cores are formed of a mixture of sand and flour in a plastic, cohesive condition. The difference in plasticity and coherence is one of degree only.
The machines, as machines, combinations of moving mechanical parts adapted to receive and to apply motion to produce mechanical results, are identical, element for element, function for function.
Are the arts analogous? Broadly, both relate to the shaping of tubular bodies. More closely, both cores and tiles are made from earthy substances, reduced by water to plastic, coherent conditions, then given their tubular shapes, and then baked to hardness for use. If closer analogy were required, it seems to us that nothing short of identity would suffice.
. As a patent cannot rightfully be granted merely for a new use of an old machine, it matters not whether the intuitive flash came 35 years or 35 minutes after the disclosure of the original invention.