Opinion ID: 1563058
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: What, if anything, did Sherwood invent?

Text: An inspection of the patent drawings in the three patents issued to Sherwood, a consideration of specifications in all the patents and of the claims in patent 1,376,043, indicates that plaintiff conceived his invention to be in the structure which permitted the lubrication of soft rubber surface in contact with steel or other metal in a bearing by securing the free flow of water through the bearing in large quantities, through the channel provided by the use of spiral bearings of elastic material and the forcing of such flow by the screw action of the spiral bearing, such form being called for by the use of soft rubber as the supporting surface for the shaft. It is clear that the most difficult problem was one of lubrication involved in the use of a bearing supporting the relatively heavy weights of the shaft and its attachments on soft rubber which would be in direct contact with the revolving shaft or, if on the shaft, with the stationary bearing, and therefore subject to the frictional resistance resulting from the intimate contact of the compressed rubber with the metal compressing it and the consequent tendency of the surfaces to adhere. In patent 1,376,043 the claims all include the spiral form for the soft rubber bearings. No claim is made for the use of soft rubber in the bearing except in that form. The failure to claim invention in the use of soft rubber in the bearing in other forms or in the journal in frictional contact with the revolving shaft, or bearing, as the case might be, would have abandoned or dedicated that discovery to the public (Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co., 270 U.S. 390, 401, 46 S.Ct. 324, 325, 70 L.Ed. 651), were it not for the fact that the application which resulted in patent 1,416,988 was copending and in that patent a definite claim is made to cover the use of rubber as the supporting surface in frictional contact with the revolving shaft. Assuming, as the plaintiffs contend, that there was invention in the use of water lubricated soft rubber as a supporting material in frictional contact with the metal of the shaft or of the bearing, the fact that the inventor did not claim his invention in his application for patent 1,376,043 and did claim it in his copending application for patent 1,416,988 and in the later application for patent 1,510,804 operated as a withdrawal of the tentative dedication to the public which would have resulted had the first patent been applied for more than two years before application was made for the later patents. Eastern Paper-Bag Co. v. Standard Paper-Bag Co., C.C., 30 F. 63, 65; Shipp v. Scott School Tp., Montgomery County, Ind., 7 Cir., 54 F.2d 1019; Eclipse Machine Co. v. J. H. Specialty Mfg. Co., D.C., 4 F.Supp. p. 306, 314. We agree with the plaintiffs that the failure to claim the use of water lubricated soft rubber in the application for patent 1,376,043 does not prevent the inventor from making that claim in the copending application for patent 1,416,988. Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U. S. 186, 14 S.Ct. 310, 38 L.Ed. 121; Traitel Marble Co. v. U. T. Hungerford, etc., Co., 2 Cir., 22 F.2d 259, 260; In re Peiler, Cust. & Pat.App., 48 F.2d 405, 407; In re Peiler, Cust. & Pat.App., 64 F.2d 984, 986; 48 C.J. 48, § 50, and cases cited. With reference to the contention that application for patent 1,510,804 shows no invention over application for patent 1,416,988 because the latter application merely called for reversal of rubber or elastic part from the bearing to the journal thus using the same material in substantially the same way on the journal, the argument of the appellees and cross-appellants on this subject involves the conclusion that application for patent 1,416,988 would cover the use of rubber either on the journal or in the bearing and, consequently, that patent 1,510,804 was entirely unnecessary as the invention was already covered by patent 1,416,988. The plaintiffs contend that the application of rubber to the journal rather than to the bearings was so much simpler that it involved invention to provide for the placing of rubber upon the journal. The application for patent 1,510,804 makes no claim based upon the greater simplicity in structure resulting from the use of rubber on the journal instead of in the bearing, and does not disclose the method of application of the rubber to the shaft. It is assumed in the patent that ordinary mechanical skill would be sufficient to place the rubber upon the journal of the shaft when it was once indicated that this was desirable. The plaintiffs, in support of their claim that invention was involved in the idea of placing rubber on the shaft, as distinguished from the bearing, points to the application of rubber to the drill stem in an oil drilling outfit, as compared to the lining of the casing or sections thereof with rubber, and in effect claims that in such a case it involves inventive genius to decide to put rubber on the drill stem rather than on the walls of the casing. This argument overlooks the fact that it is quite clear that such a construction was not in the mind of the inventor at the time he filed his application for the shifting of the rubber support from the bearings to the journal and is not taught by the patent. Plaintiffs concede that the use of channels for lubrication in the bearing or on the shaft is not new and that the use of such spiral channels in the form provided by the three Sherwood patents did not constitute invention. Plaintiffs' claim is that the use of water lubricated soft rubber as a support for the revolving shaft in a machine constitutes invention, and that the discovery that soft rubber could be so used and so applied was the invention of Sherwood. If that is true it is disclosed by each of the three applications for the three patents issued to Sherwood and, consequently, the third patent, No. 1,510,804, did not constitute invention over the second patent 1,416,988, and 1,416,988 did not constitute invention over 1,376,043, although, as has been stated, the fact that applications 1,376,043 and 1,416,988 were copending, authorized issuance of 1,416,988, although the broad claims of 1,416,988 might have been claimed in the application of 1,376,043.