Boeck Fie Products v Brambles dus ieee

Boeck Fie Products v Brambles dus ieee - [1937] HCA 43 - HCA 1937 case summary — Zoe

[14]

"T, John Fuller Allen, a U.S. citizen of 502 West Fifth Street, Erie, Pennsylvania, United States of America, engineer, hereby declare this invention and the manner in which it is to be performed to be fully described and ascertained in and by the following statement : - This invention is particularly designed to mould hollow rubber articles such for example as storage battery boxes. In moulding such articles the apparatus should be arranged for conveniently reloading the mould and conveniently discharging the same without distortion of : the article. In the present invention this is accomplished by forming the mould with a detachable liner, placing the material to form the article in bulk in the mould and forcing it to the shape of the article by the telescoping action of the core of the mould within the mould, the mould being heated during this operation so that the rubber more readily flows. After the mould is finally closed by the press it is held in this closed position during vulcanization and then the core is forcibly stripped by the apparatus from the mould and the separable liners of the mould itself are stripped from the mould thus making the discharge of the finished box very rapid and very efficient. The invention is illustrated in the accompanying drawings as follows : - Fig. 1 shows a side elevation, partly in section, on the line 1 - 1 in Fig. 2. Fig. 2 a plan view, partly in section, on the line 2 - 2 in Fig. 1. Fig. 3 a side elevation of the head, the view being at right angles from that shown in Fig. 1. 1 marks the base, 2 the ram cylinder, 3 the ram, 4 the ram cap, 5 the press head, and 6 rods connecting the base and head. These are of usual construction. A mould case 7 is arranged on the ram cap. This is steam heated, the steam being admitted to the ram cap through openings 8 and the mould casing having steam cavities 9 connected with the openings 8. This mould case forms a box open at the top and on the ordinary press there would be a plurality of these boxes as shown. A mould lining is arranged within the box and comprises the bottom 10, the sides 11 and ends 12, the sides and ends being superimposed

[16]

so as to hold them initially in place. With this arrangement of mould lining, the mould lining may be stripped out of the case by pressure exerted on the bottom. A knock-out pin 14 extends through openings 15 in the ram cap. These have heads which are arranged in sockets under the bottoms of the mould lining. Slides 17 are mounted in guides 18 in the base, the slides being adapted to be moved inwardly so as to be in the path of the knock-out pins 14. As the ram is lifted to complete a mould and held in lifted position so as to subject the moulding rubber to pressure during the moulding operation the slides 17 are moved inwardly so that as the ram cap returns under pressure by means hereinafter described the mould linings are forced out of the mould casings. In order that the slides 17 may be worked together I preferably provide the levers 19 which have the pivots 20 on the base. Links 21 connect these levers with a rock arm 22 so that both slides may be thrown simultaneously. The rubber mass for forming the box is put in the mould and the ram is lifted so as to form a telescoping action with the core. The core as it operates on the mass and as the mass becomes warm forces the mass to fill the mould cavity. The ram is held in its upper position subjecting the rubber to pressure during the moulding operation. This core may be heated in any preferable manner. In order to force the ram downwardly so as to assure the stripping of the mould lining I provide the following mechanism : - A hollow rod 23 is secured to the mould casing and connected with the cavity 9. It extends through an opening 23a in the head 5 and is secured to apiston 24. The piston operates in a cylinder 25. Steam is admitted to the cylinder through an opening 26. Steam remains on the piston constantly so that there is a sufficient pressure to force the ram down- wardly to effect the stripping of the mould lining. Further steam is delivered in this way to the mould casing and rameap. After the mould lining is forced out of the mould in this way the lining may be readily picked off of the sides of the finished box so that it may be readily and quickly removed. The core is made up of sections 27 and 28, the receptacle or battery box being formed with the mould exemplifying the invention having three compartments. The end

[17]

sections 27 are formed rigid with the head while the central section 28 is preferably mounted on pins 29, the pins having heads 30 arranged with sockets 31 in the press head 5. This permits a limited move- ment of the central section 28 as the ram is retracted, thus separating the sections 27 prior to the separation of the section 28. This reduces the strain on the formed article and is less liable to result in a distor- tion of the article as the core isremoved. Having now fully described _ and ascertained my said invention and the manner in which it is to be performed, I declare that what I claim is : - 1. In a rubber-moulding apparatus, the combination of a mould ; a separable lining ; a mould core ; power-actuated mechanism forcing relative movement between the mould lining and the core ; means associated therewith disengaging the lining from the mould; and means subjecting the mould to vulcanizing heat. 2. The invention according to claim 1 character- ized by the fact that the power-actuated mechanism first forces the telescopic action between the core and the mould to fill the mould with the material and then holds the parts under pressure during the vulcanizing action. 3. The invention according to claim 1 in which : the means for disengaging the lining from the mould is power-actuated and associated with the power-actuated mechanism for forcing the mould and core together. 4. The invention according to claim 1 characterized by the fact that the power-actuated mechanism first forces the telescopic action between the core and the mould to fill the mould with the material and then holds the parts under pressure during the vulcanizing action and the means for disengaging the lining from the mould is power-actuated and associated with the power-actuated mechanism for forcing the mould and core together. 5. The invention according to claim 1 characterized by the fact that the power-actuated mechanism is fluid-actuated. 6. The invention according to claim 1 characterized by the fact that the power- actuated mechanism not only forces the mould and core together to fill the mould with the plastic material but also power means strip the core from the mould. 7. The invention according to claim 1 characterized by the fact that the power-actuated mechanism not only forces the mould and core together to fill the mould with plastic material but power means also strip the core from the mould and the |

[19]

characterized by the fact that the means for disengaging the lining from the mould comprises a knock-out device operating to discharge the mould on a backward movement of the mould. 9. In a rubber- moulding apparatus, the combination of a ram ; a mould case on the ram; means for subjecting the mould case to vulcanizing heat ; a separable mould lining in the case ; and a knock-out acting on a backward movement of the ram on the mould lining to discharge it from the case. 10. Ina rubber moulding apparatus, the combination of aram ; ahead opposed to the ram ; a mould mounted on the ram ; a mould core carried by the head ; and means mounted on the head for forcing a backward movement of the ram to disengage the mould fromthe core. 11. In a rubber-moulding apparatus, the combination of a ram; a mould case on the ram; a head opposed to the ram ; means for subjecting the case to vulcanizing heat ; a separable mould lining in the case; a core mounted on the head and telescopically moving into the mould; a knock-out device acting on a backward movement of the ram to discharge the mould lining from the case ; and power-actuated means forcing a backward movement of the ram to strip the mould from the core and the lining from the case. 12. The invention according to claim 10, characterized by the fact that the means is in the form of a steam cylinder having a hollow piston through which steam conveyed to the mould for heating the same to a vulcanizing temperature passes. 13. In a rubber-moulding apparatus, the combination of a ram; a head opposed to the ram ; a mould mounted on the ram; and a core mounted on the head, said core having a plurality of sections, one of the sections being movably mounted making the parting of the sections from the mould successive. 14. In a rubber-moulding apparatus, the combination of a mould case ; means subjecting the mould case to vulcanizing heat ; a separable mould lining in the case forming a parallel-sided mould ; and power-actuated means for ejecting the lining from the mould case upon the completion of vulcanization. Dated this 16th day of June, a.p. 1925."

[30]

held to the base by these four uprights. On the ram cap is mounted a mould box which is steam heated. On the head of the press are mounted two cores of the same shape as the inside of the battery container to be formed. The method of heating this mould case is by means of a hollow piston which works in this cylinder and which distributes the steam into that mould case. Steam is also admitted to the core by means of a pipe, not shown, into the head of the press. Fitting into the mould case are separable liners assembled together in this piece here. The separable liners comprise a bottom plate on to which is fitted a spindle and which is fitted also with grooves round its edges. Into these grooves fit side plates or liners which are tongued so as to fit into the groove and be held on to the bottom plate. These side plates, of which there are four, when assembled form a box, which has the same shape as the outside of the battery container to be moulded. The object of the grooving in the liners is to enable them to be easily picked off or taken to pieces. The grooving is to hold the side liner to the bottom plate. The spindle on the bottom plate of the liners projects through the ram cap, through a hole in the ram cap. Underneath that spindle and passing below the ram cap are slides which will slide in and out of the ram cap. The object of each slide is to arrest the downward motion of the bottom liner by stopping the pin on the bottom plate from falling further. The slide works in that groove and when the ram is in the top position that slide is pushed in so that when it drops again the pin is arrested and is pushed up through the bottom of the mould case. The operation of the press is as follows : - In its position at rest the ram and the cap and the mould case are a sufficient distance from the bottom of the core to enable the liners to be assembled in that position. As these liners are collapsible the one or more sides of each set of liners is taken away, and uncured rubber is placed in that box. The liners are then re-assembled round the uncured rubber. Hydraulic pressure is then admitted to the cylinder of the ram, which raises the ram carrying with it the cylinder of the mould case over the assembled liners. These liners have a slight taper so that when the mould case rises over the liners it wedges the liners into the mould case. As the upward motion is continued

[31]

under hydraulic pressure, the uncured rubber, which has already been placed in a box, meets the bottom of the core. The core is generally divided into sections so as to make the compartments in the battery container. Under the continued pressure of the ram the uncured rubber causes the liners to fit more tightly into that mould, so that as it ascends to its full stroke the liners are very firmly held in the mould case. Further pressure being exerted on the ram, the core, which is heated by steam, causes the uncured rubber to press out and flow into the space between the core and the liners. At the top of its stroke the top of the liners hits against the projection on the head of the press, thus making the whole thing completely tight. Pressure is maintained on that press for a sufficient period to allow the rubber to become vulcanized. When it is judged the rubber is vulcanized, pressure is released from the hydraulic ram, and the ram and ram cap, mould case, liners and battery box begin to descend. On the top of this press is a steam cylinder having work- ing in it a piston which projects down on to the top of the mould case and on which there is a pressure of steam maintained through the whole operation. As the pressure of steam is released from the ram the weight of this ram and the ram cap and mould case, together with the pressure which is exerted on this steam cylinder, causes the core to break from the inside of the battery box which has been vulcanized. Further descent of the ram is allowed to take place and in the meantime the slides are pressed in towards the centre. As the ram falls further the pins on the bottom plates of the sets of liners hit on to the slides and their motion is arrested. The weight then of the ram and the ram cap and the mould case, together with the steam pressure on this cylinder, causes a break between the liners and the mould case. The ram then continues to fall, and ram cap and mould case, and finally releases the whole of the - assembled liners free of the top of the mould case. The liners are then picked off from the sides of the finished container and the container is taken out and the whole cycle of operations begun again.'

[81]

broad, is not stated too broadly nor too narrowly (Shave v. H. V, McKay Massey Harris Pty. Ltd. (1) ). All the integers stated in the claim are contained in the respondent's machine. Where, as in 1 claim 1, a claim is in broad terms it should not be cut down or limited by a reference to the body of the specification (Ingersoll Sergeant Drill Co. v. Consolidated Pneumatic Tool Co. Ltd. (2)). Claim 1 should be read in accordance with the principle of construction laid down 4 in Lightning Fastener Co. Ltd. v. Colonial Fastener Co. Ltd. and G. E. Prentice Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (3), that is, in the light of the specification. If, however, the claim should be construed more narrowly, and the words " means associated therewith disengaging 7 the lining from the mould " refer to the means that are described in the body of the specification, then the appellant's claims are still infringed under the doctrine of mechanical equivalent (Walker y. Alemite Corporation (4) ; Rheostatic Co. Ltd. v. Robert McLaren & Co. Ltd. (5) ; R.C.A. Photophone Ltd. v. Gaumont-British Picture Corpora- tion Ltd. and British Acoustic Films Ltd. (6) ). The respondent's machine is merely colourably different and, as a whole, is intended to produce, by the same means, the same result as the appellant's - machine. The art should be limited to the art of rubber moulding, and should not be extended to the art of moulding generally. Although prior to the invention containers had been imported into - Australia, nothing was known here as to the machine in which those containers were made. In view of that absence of knowledge it cannot be said that the appellant's invention was not a decided advance, or lacked subject matter. Four inventive steps are shown in the appellant's patent. The judge of first instance was in error in holding that this invention came within the first part of the judgment of Lord Tomlin in British Celanese Ltd. v. Courtaulds Ltd. (7). He should have held that it came within the second part, that is, assuming that it consisted entirely of old integers. What is required for subject matter in the case of a combination is shown in Albert - Wood Ameolite v. Gowshall Ltd. (8). From the principles there laid

[90]

(Ingersoll Sergeant Drill Co. v. Consolidated Pneumatic Tool Co. Lid. (1) ). If claim 1 comprises integers not limited in any way then it is void for want of subject matter. The other claims also are bad. Claim 1 is not infringed unless it is given the broadest interpretation possible. The doctrine of mechanical equivalent cannot be called in aid because (a) in patent law an equivalent is not anything which gives the same result but anything in alternative which does the same thing in the same way, and (b) the doctrine of equivalence only applies to unessential factors and has no application to factors which form part of the essence of the claim and that depend on the claim itself. Although it is true that reference may be made the body of the specification as a dictionary (Lightning Fast Co. Ltd. v. Colonial Fastener Co. Ltd. and G. BE. Prentice Manu- facturing Co. Ltd. (2)), for the meaning of a term in a claim which is technical, or of a term which is peculiar to that speci- fication, if a claim, absolutely general on the face of it. ean b interpreted only by importing modifications or limitations from the body of the specification, that claim must be void for ambiguity (Ingersoll Sergeant Drill Co. v. Consolidated Pneumatic Tool Co. Ltd. (3) ). The trial judge correctly applied the principle laid down i British Celanese Ltd. v. Courtaulds Ltd. (4). As to subject matter, there is not any suggestion in the specification that the advantag obtained and the inventive act employed was the separation brought about by the downward movement of the ram cap. To be patent able a combination must be new; an invention based on an ol combination is had (Cannington v. Nuttall (5) ). There must b inventive ingenuity. The physical integers in claim 1 are old, separately and as a combination. There is no inventiveness even i applying for the first time power machinery to a new appara Claim 1 is void because of the vagueness and ambiguity of the wot "power" and "associated therewith." No assistance on point is obtainable from the body of the specification. The principl proper to be applied in this case are as stated in Mullard i

[97]

makes identical for all purposes with battery boxes made under the appellant's patent. Every particular integer, e.g., telescopic action to mould battery boxes, in the appellant's machine was well known in the art. Any competent person armed with the common general knowledge of the art presented with the Ten Brink or Kelly specifica- tions would then be put in such a position that no inventive step would therein be required to evolve the appellant's machine. The question whether a claimed feature was an inventive step and there- fore constituted subject matter, or, on the contrary, was something obvious to a competent person, and, also, the question of pap anticipations, were dealt with in Paper Sacks Pty. Ltd. v. Cowper (1). The only matters in issue in Pope Appliance Corporation y, Spanish River Pulp and Paper Mills (2) were as to anticipations, Generally speaking, all the elements contained in the appellant's patent appear in the Ten Brink and Kelly specifications. Such elements as may not so appear do not involve ingenuity. The Ten Brink machine showed elements in combination and in use, and thus prevents the combination of the appellant's machine from being invented. A combination of a similar nature is also shown in - the Kelly specification. The law as to the bearing of these specifica- tions severally on the question of subject matter is shown in Société Anonyme Servo-Frein Dewandre v. Citroen Cars Ltd. (3), Clorius v. Tonner (4), and Gillette Safety Razor Co. v. Anglo-American Trading Co. Ltd. (5). The doctrine of mechanical equivalent is a doctrine which applies only to incidental matters ; it does not apply to those matters which the claim makes essential (R.C.A. Photophone Ltd. v. Gawi British Picture Corporation Ltd. (6) ). If claim 1 is to be read at large, without reference to the specification, for the purpose determining what is the point of the power-actuating mechani then it goes beyond the disclosure in the specification and, therefore, is invalid. Relative movement disengaging is a movement whi covers the whole article. The expression " means associated thi with disengaging the lining" must refer to power-actua' mechanism. The specification supports the view that the "means

[135]

my opinion it is particularly necessary for courts to keep these warnings in mind in cases where, after the event, many intelligent persons, being informed not only of the object to be achieved, but being aware that it has been achieved both by a patentee and by an alleged infringer, are inclined to have difficulty in discovering any invention anywhere. When an objective, such as making a vulcan- ized battery box in one operation by machinery, is conceived, a real step may even at that stage have been taken along the road of invention. But the matter wears a different aspect when evidence is presented to a court some years after the objective has been attained by means which have then become well known. It is frequently possible to take, as it were, a patent to pieces, and then, beginning with one piece, to show how, in order to obtain one result, step A must be taken ; in order to obtain another particular result, step B must be taken - and so on until one has the whole combina- tion for which inventive quality is claimed. If the analysis is taken into sufficient detail, every single step in the development of an invention, taken separately, can be shown to be obvious. The fact that an expert engineer, speaking after the event, can show clearly " how it is done " and, indeed, given an initial definition of "it," how it must be done, does not, in my opinion, establish absence of inventive ingenuity. Indeed, the ingenuity of such witnesses themselves is often very striking. I attach much more importance to evidence showing that, until the patentee came along with his ideas. the thing which he succeeded in doing had never been done by anybody, though it was obviously a useful and profitable thing todo. Of course there is no invention if, as soon as the question of how to do a thing is asked, any intelligent practical man acquainted with the relevant art can, with little trouble, provide the solution. Again, if a man versed in the relevant theory can readily devise means of accomplishing the desired end by an application of general knowledge, there is no invention. But, in the present case, the evidence of the expert witnesses for the defendant is really a recon- struction of an inventive process step by step, each step, when it is known that it must be taken and that it must be taken in a certain direction, being obvious enough in itself. Such evidence does not,

[148]

of integers actually made by the inventor. It must be rare for a combination to consist in such an application of principle that the inventor can exclude from the field all combinations of mechanical equivalents of the integers producing the same result. In the present case, as I understand it, Nicholas J. was of opinion that the machine, as disclosed by the drawings and the body of the specification, exhibited no proper subject matter for a patent, his reason being that it comprised an association of well-known elements which although co-operating together acted each in its old way and com- bining them involved no inventive step. I am not prepared to say that if the claim had been confined to the integers seen in the machine as shown in the drawings, and had been properly drawn so as to insist in the co-action of those elements as they appear in the machine, the claim would necessarily have been invalid. But as claim 1 stands it attempts to describe in general words mechanical steps or functions with a view no doubt of covering every machine which endeavours to bring together the performance in one series of opera- tions of all these functions by any mechanical means. The expression " power-actuated mechanism forcing relative movement between the mould lining and the core," strikes me as indefinite in the extreme. It covers all kinds of movement of the two parts mentioned so long as the movement relates one part to the other. But even more indefinite is the next phrase " means associated therewith disengaging the lining from the mould." This covers and no doubt was intended to cover any device discovered or discoverable by which the lining can be freed from its container. Both in the case of relative move- ment and disengagement the inventor shows only one way of doing these things. He might perhaps make that way of doing it part of a combination claim. But I cannot believe that he can validly make a combination claim consisting of any way which the mind of man discovers for performing these functions. The claim seems to me too wide and to be subject to the objection Nicholas J. made to it based upon the Celanese Case (1). For non constat that all the ways of forcing relative movement by mechanical power and disengag- ing the lining from the core have " a working inter-relation " between

[175]

Regarded alone, the idea of using liners as a sheath to prevent or avoid distortion of a moulded article when a core was withdrawn or the thing itself was extracted from the mould may at once be put on one side. These purposes formed part of the reason for the use of liners in all sorts of plastic moulding. The use of liners to answer the needs arising from the nature of the patentee's machine may make a contribution to the subject matter of the whole. But applying liners to rubber moulding by means of a telescopic core does not appear to me in itself to amount to invention. Much the same criticism may be made of the claim to invention in adopting a mechanical means of telescoping a core into the mould. But, in dealing with the question whether the whole appliance does not exhibit subject matter, one cannot but compare the picture presented by the patentee's machine with the prior state in Australia of the particular part of the art. The comparison must carry great weight. Every element in the machine is open, no doubt, to the observation that the general practice of moulding or the expedients in use in power- driven presses and other machines supply the ideas that element represents. But, by the arrangement of upward-moving ram head, of ducts or passages therein for steam heating, of mould case, liners, core, and, on the retreat of the ram head, knock-out pins and slides, the patentee has brought into being an implement moved by mechani- cal power which performs in an entirely new and greatly improved manner the work of moulding and vulcanizing a box or other hollow article. To my mind the difficulty in reference to subject matter in the present case does not lie in the availability of the expedients to which the patentee has resorted, nor in the obviousness of the idea that a single machine should be made for the performance of the entire work of producing a vulcanized box, if one could be devised, but in the nature of the combination. The machine combines the doing of things which formerly had been done separately and it does

[200]

or A. connection, however independent the functions of the mechanism may be. It is not hard to understand the desire of the specifier to cover all possible mechanical equivalents of the things contributing to the merit of the invention. But in an invention the patentable merit of which lies in the combination of particular interacting parts all old, this is almost as difficult as too close and detailed a claim is dangerous. To restrict the claim by construction is tempting. There is, too, the example afforded by the decision of the Privy Council in the Lightning Fastener Co. Ltd. v. Colonial Fastener Co. Ltd. and G. E. Prentice Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1), reversing the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, (2) and of Maclean J. (3), where additional information as to the inven- tion may be obtained. Their Lordships read a claim expressed very widely in the setting of the specification and treated it as a claim to a machine of a particular type (4). But to apply this principle to the present case appears to me to involve special difficulties. It is plain that the object of drawing the claim widely was to extend the monopoly beyond the actual definite features combined in the machine disclosed and to cover variations in integers. But, unfortunately, except for the operation together of those very integers, subject matter would fail. By attempting to cover every means of performing the same function, the specifier necessarily includes means which involve no adaptation, no functional © interdependence, no mutual co-operation, of the elements combined in the claim. Again, if a restrictive interpretation of the claim were adopted, no certain or definite criterion of infringement could be found. The limits of the monopoly would be anything but apparent and the exact thing which Lord Loreburn condemns would have been done. If, contrary to the view I have expressed, the precise machine described in the body of the specification were taken as the thing protected, then in my opinion, there would be no infringe- ment. For, in that event, it would be impossible to treat the mode of withdrawing the liners in the alleged infringement as the mechanical equivalent of the knock-out pin operating on the descent of the ram head. Nor could the manual use of the pinch bar be regarded as equivalent to the steam piston in breaking the die case

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (207 paragraphs)

Parties