« ПретходнаНастави »
having one side only of each coil in contact with the armature drum.
Claims i and 2 cover the novel Eickemeyer coil, whether the winding on the armature core be a single-layer winding or a double-layer winding. Claim 4, in terms, is much broader, and includes coils' in which the Eickemeyer invention is absent; in fact all forms of coils, provided they are detachable and counterpart when assembled on the armature core in a particular type of double winding. Two features are embraced in claim 4, namely, a winding composed of detachable counterpart coils, and a method of double-layer winding. This broad claim, according to its literal reading, can only be sustained on one of three grounds: First. That the Eickemeyer invention set forth in the first two claims of the patent covers all forms of drum-armature coils which are detachable and counterpart. If this be true, then this claim may be a valid claim for the Eickemeyer invention when used in the type of winding described. Second. Íhat the Eickemeyer invention disclosed in his patent resides in the conception or discovery of the attachability and counterpartism of armature coils, rather than in the means by which such coils are made detachable and counterpart. If this be true, then this claim may be a valid claim for such coils when placed on the armature core in a particular kind of double-layer winding. Third. That the Eickemeyer patent covers two distinct inventions, (1) a particular form of armature coils, and (2) a new method of double-layer winding. If this be true, this claim may be a valid claim for this method of winding where detachable counterpart coils are employed. This broad claim cannot be sustained on the first ground, because we have already held that the Eickemeyer invention is limited to a coil having the essential structural characteristics set out in claims i and 2, and therefore does not cover other detachable counterpart coils in which these essential structural characteristics are absent. This broad claim cannot be sustained on the second ground, because, at the date of the Eickemeyer invention, there was nothing new in the mere conception of detachable counterpart armature coils apart from the means by which such coils are made detachable and counterpart. The desirability of having form-wound coils detachable and counterpart had long been recognized in the art, and the invention of Eickemeyer resides wholly in the means by which these results are attained. This broad claim cannot be sustained on the third ground, because the Eickemeyer patent is not for two distinct inventions,-a novel coil and a new method of double winding,—but is for a novel coil, or a series of such coils, which may be collected on the armature core in several types of winding. That the Eickemeyer patent is limited to the novel coil, and was not intended to cover, as a separate inventio and could not cover, if so intended, the method of double-layer winding described in claim 4, is shown (1) by the patent itself, (2) by the history of the patent in the patent office, and (3) by the prior art. The Eickemeyer patent contains a full, clear, and comprehensive statement of the patentee's invention, and a fairly comprehensive statement of the prior art; and in the consideration of the questions which arise in this case, it is a relief to turn from the conflicting and often insolvable opinions and explanations of experts respecting this patent and other patents in evidence, to the patent itself for light and guidance. As the meaning of claims I and 2 is made perfectly clear from the drawings and specification, so likewise is the meaning of claim 4. The general scheme of the patent is plain. The patentee points out his invention, and states its objects and advantages, and he then proceeds to describe, and illustrate by the drawings, the various arrangements in which his novel coils may be used. These show the capacity or adaptability of the patented coil, by virtue of its construction and mode of operation, for single-layer and double-layer windings. Most of the drawings of the patent illustrate single-layer windings, which the patentee evidently preferred. There are, however, two drawings which illustrate, as an alternative arrangement, the type of double-layer winding mentioned in claim 4. There is, however, no suggestion in the specification that Eickemeyer was the inventor of this method of double-layer winding. It only appears as one of the "arrangements" mentioned in the specification, and the patentee refers to it as follows:
“It is sometimes desirable that the wire at the sides of each coil should be in one layer, superimposed by the wires of another coil, to form additional layers, as illustrated in the coils D 2 of Figs. 12 and 13.
These coils have the same general characteristics of those previously described; but it will be seen that at each side of the core (indicated in dotted lines) each coil at its one side overlaps or overlies one side of another coil, and that at the opposite side this overlapping is reversed, thus placing all of the con rolutions in both coils in a uniform position on the armature drum or core. This general arrangement can be carried out to any possibly desired extent."
The patentee states that "it is sometimes desirable” to make such a disposition of the two sides of the coil, and adds, "These coils have the same general characteristics of those previously described." There is no doubt, then, that all the patentee intended to cover by claim 4 was an alternative arrangement of his novel coils in a particular type of double-layer winding; and, if the claim is to be read in connection with the specification, or any significance is to be given to the words "substantially as described,” it plainly must be limited to the coils of the patent. The proceedings in the patent office show that Eickemeyer attempted to claim this method of double winding and abandoned it. In the first application for his patent, there appears the following claim:
"7th. In a dynamo-electric armature, a 'winding' in which but one-half of the effective portion is placed in immediate contact with the armature core, substantially as described.”
This claim was rejected on reference to the Freeman patent of July 29, 1884, and the Weston patent of June 13, 1882. Both of these patents describe the same method of double-layer winding with hand-wound coils. The prior art shows that this method of winding was well known. Not only is it disclosed in prior patents, but in one or more instances the patents state that it is a wellknown method of winding. In the Hering patent of February 2, 1886, this method is mentioned as "a method heretofore employed" and "well known to those skilled in the art." The patentee further says: "Nor do I claim the disposition of the two halves of each coil alternately on the inner and outer layers of wire on the
armature.” The Freeman patent of July 29, 1884, and the Weston patent of June 13, 1882, as already stated, exhibit the same method of winding. In the Edison patent of August 22, 1882, there is found a similar type of winding, and the specification says: “The double winding is in effect a single winding with the alternate bars located in an outer layer.” In the Jehl patent, dated January 10, 1888, one side of the coil is in one layer, and the other side in another layer. The Vincent English patent of May 18, 1882, describes two layers, with the sides of each coil in different layers. In the Hering, Freeman, and Weston patents, the coils on the armature core were hand-wound, or wound on the armature core by hand, as distinguished from form-wound, or wound on a former and then placed on the armature core. Assuming that Eickemeyer was the first to extend the use of this method to formwound coils which are detachable and counterpart, this would not give him the right to a monopoly of all form-wound coils which are detachable and counterpart when placed on the armature core in this type of double-layer winding. But the prior art does not stop with the hand-wound coils. In the Jehl, Vincent, and Edison patents, form-wound detachable counterpart coils were arranged in this type of double winding on a disk armature; and the Vincent patent seems also to suggest the same arrangement for a drum armature. Without going further, it is manifest that the method of double-layer winding set out in claim 4 was old in the art.
These references to the patent, the proceedings in the patent office, and the prior art, demonstrate that Eickemeyer is not entitled to a broad claim covering the application to a drum armature of this type of double-layer winding when composed of any form of coils which are detachable and counterpart; and it follows that claim 4 must be held invalid unless it is limited to the detachable counterpart coils of the Eickemeyer patent. Assuming claim 4 to be valid when so limited, the defendant's coil does not infringe this claim, because, as we have already found, it lacks the essential structural characteristics of the Eickemeyer coil.
The complainant's counsel has sought to impress upon the court the importance, value, and broad scope of the Eickemeyer invention. It seems true, notwithstanding the disclosure in the obscure Rapieff British patent of 1879, that Eickemeyer made an important practical improvement in windings for dynamo-electric armatures; but we should not for this reason magnify his invention. Eickemeyer did not invent form-wound coils to take the place of handmade coils, nor was he the inventor of detachable counterpart formwound coils; but the most which he accomplished was the production of a form-wound detachable counterpart coil adapted for use on a drum armature, as distinct from a disk or ring armature. But, even as to drum armatures, the prior art admittedly shows form-wound detachable coils which were in a degree counterpart. Eickemeyer specially directed his attention to an improved winding for a bipolar drum armature. In a bipolar machine, the disposition of the ends of the coils is a serious problem, as the two sides of cach coil occupy diametrically opposite positions on the periphery
of the drum. This problem he solved by making a coil of such shape that the lesser half of one coil may pass into and through the larger halves of other coils. By this means, the ends were economically disposed of in a minimum space alongside the ends of the armature core, and other advantages obtained which are set out in the patent. In his specification Eickemeyer recognizes the state of the art and the scope of his invention. He says:
“In certain prior multipolar machines the armature coils have been capable of ready attachment to and removal from the armature drum or core, and several of the coils in each armature have been counterparts in size and form, but several different sizes and forms have been necessary in each machine; but I know of no prior multipolar or bipolar machines in which the several armature coils were counterparts in size and form, or any prior bipolar machine which has had coils capable of being applied to or removed from the drum or core without actually unwinding the wire, although, in certain prior machines having bar conductors, the bars could be readily applied to and detached from the drum or core by separating the bars from such disks or other radial conductors.
Regardless of the character of the armature with reference to its polar arrangement, I believe it to be broadly new to cover a drum or core with a series of coils which are counterparts in size and contour, and which are therefore interchangeable, one with another, with reference to their positions on the armature drum or core."
The defendant contends that the prior art was in advance of this statement, in that the Alioth German patent of 1885 and the Vincent British patent of 1882 disclose an armature drum with a series of coils which were counterpart and interchangeable. But it is unnecessary to enter into this field of controversy, for, taking Eickemeyer's statement of the prior art and of his invention as correct, we find that all he invented was an armature coil for drum armatures having a certain structural form and a mode of operation by virtue of such form; and, this being true, his invention cannot cover other armature coils of an essentially different form, and with a different mode of operation.
As all the coils used by the defendant (which we assume are like the exhibits in evidence) have equal halves, so that one half of one coil cannot pass into and through the halves of other coils, they do not contain the Eickemeyer invention, and therefore do not infringe either the first, second, or fourth claims of the patent in suit.
The decree of the circuit court is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court, with the direction to dismiss the bill of complaint with costs; and the costs of this court are awarded to the Webster & Dudley Street Railway Company.
(113 Fed. 785.)
COLTRANE et al. v. BLAKE et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. February 4, 182.)
1. Building and Loan AssociatIONS-LAW GOVERNING CONTRACTS-Dual RE
LATIONS WITH BORROWING STOCKHOLDERS.
The relations between a building and loan association and its stockholders, as such, are the same as between other business corporations and their stockholders, and their respective rights and obligations under the contract are governed by the general law, unless modified by statute. As to matters arising out of such relations, the decisions of the courts of the state are not binding upon the federal courts, but when a stockholder becomes also a borrower his contract as such is governed by the local law, and upon the question of his rights and liabilities thereunder
the state decisions are controlling. 2. SAME-DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS IN INSOLVENCY-STATUS OF HOLDERS OF
Holders of full-paid stock issued by a building and loan association as authorized by its by-laws, and which differs from the common or installment stock only in the fact that the holders are paid interest or a fixed dividend at stated periods instead of their proportionate share of the profits of the association, are stockholders, and not creditors, and on the winding up of the corporation in insolvency are entitled to no prefer
ence over other stockholders. 3. SAME-EFFECT OF NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL.
A matured notice of withdrawal given by a stockholder of a building association, as permitted by the terms of his contract, does not operate to terminate his membership, and convert him into a creditor entitled to preference of payment over other members in the distribution of the assets of the association in insolvency, contrary to the express provisions
of the by-laws. 4. SAME.
Where certificates of paid-up stock issued by a building association gave the holder the right to withdraw and have his stock redeemed subject to the provisions of the by-laws, which required 30 days' notice of intention to withdraw to be given, the status of a holder of such a certificate as a stockholder is not affected by a notice of withdrawal, given less than 30 days before the commencement of proceedings in in
solvency against the association. 5. Same-ACCOUNTING WITH BORROWING STOCKHOLDERS.
Where a stockholder in a building and loan association becomes also a borrower, his contract as such is governed by the local law, and where by such law it is usurious, in a settlement on the winding up of the association in insolvency before the maturity of his loan he should be charged with interest on the sum borrowed at the legal rate, and credited with all sums paid as premiums and interest, but the local law does not govern as to payments made by him as dues on bis stock which are made under his contract as a stockholder, and the principles of equity require that as to such payments he be placed on an equality with nonborrowing stockholders, and share ratably with them in the assets remaining after the debts of the association are paid; and he is not entitled to credit on his loan for such payments where the proceedings are in a federal court, whatever may be the rule of the courts of the state.
Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland.
See 110 Fed. 272, 281, 293.