[No.6] Patent -Infringement - Cleaning devices for textile ...

99

REPORTS OF PATENT, DESIGN AND TRADE MARK. CASES

5

[1966] 5TH MAY, 1966

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE-CHANCERY DIVISION

Before MR. JUSTICE LLOYD JACOB

27th, 28th and 29th January and

Ist, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th and

10th February and 18th March 1965.

PARKS-CRAMER COMPANY v. G. W. THORNTON AND SONS LTD.

[No.6]

Patent -Infringement - Cleaning devices for textile machinery - Mechanicalequivalents-Obviousness.

The plaintiffs brought an action for infringement of two patents relating to10 travelling cleaners for longitudinally aligned machines such as cotton spinning

machines. The first patent proposed that accumulations of dust on the machinescould be removed by means of a cleaner travelling on a track above the machines,and having a fan in a casing delivering air to conduits on opposite sides of themachine. The lower ends of these conduits were made of a flexible or yieldable

15 material in order not to injure any machine operator against whom the travellingconduit happened to impinge. The evidence showed that the conception of usingsuch a yieldable conduit overcame what had previously been a serious problem inthe art, and therefore the defendants' allegation that the patent was invalid forobviousness failed. The cleaning devices manufactured and sold by the defendants

20 had flexible conduits, but in place of the single fan with. outlets on opposite sidesdescribed and claimed by the plaintiffs, and even mentioned by them as a desirablefeature in their advertising literature, the defendants' cleaner had a separate motorand fan on each side.

Held, that in determining the issue of infringement, the court had to examine25 the totality of the invention, to mark its essential from its unessential features, and

thereby to test whether or not the defendants had appropriated, as a matter ofsubstance, the plaintiffs' invention. The invention resided, not in the conception. atflexible conduits, but in their incorporation at particular locations into a definedtype of machine, one having a single fan. The plaintiffs asserted certain advantages

30 for the use of a single fan. Accordingly, the defendants' cleaner with separate fanson each side, was not an infringement of the plaintiffs' claim (p. 129).

Electric & Musical Industries Ltd. v. Lissen Ltd. (1939) 56 R.P.C. 23 at 41(H.L.) and Marconi v. British Radio Telegraph Co. (1911) 28 R.P.C. 181 considered.

The second patent in suit related to a method of cleaning the floor space between35 rows of textile machines by means of a travelling overhead vacuum cleaner.

According to claim 1 as amended, the invention consisted in producing a suctioncurrent near the floor between machines by means of an automatic travellingvacuum cleaning device. According to the second claim, the suction current couldbe given an oscillatory movement transverse to its direction of travel, so that

Dow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com/rpc/article/83/6/99/1634926 by guest on 01 February 2022

100

[No.6] REPORTS OF PATENT, DESIGN AND TRADE MARK CASES

Parks-Cramer Company v. G. W. Thornton and Sons Ltd.(Patent, Iniringement Ch.D.)

[1966]

repeated passes of the vacuum cleaner would clean the whole floor area betweenrows of spinning frames, and also draw dust from beneath them. A passage in thedescription stated that the vacuum nozzles could be used manually for cleaningthe spinning frames. The evidence established that vacuum cleaning was a lvell-known method of removing dust from floors. 5

Held, (1) that claim 1 tvas invalid for obviousness, because the proposal ofcleaning the floor space between rows of machines with a vacuum cleaner wouldhave occurred to any competent housewife (p. 133).

(2) That the patentees' real contribution to the art was the proposal in claim 2for a suction nozzle having oscillatory movement transverse to its direction of travel. 10However, claim 2 was drafted in manner which covered non-inventive methods ofoperation specifically mentioned in the description, and was therefore invalid(p. 134).

This was an action brought by Parks-Cramer Company and Parks-Cramer(Great Britain) Limited, proprietors of patents Nos. 672,852 and 852,765, against 15G. W. Thornton & Sons Limited and Ernst Jacobi and Heinz Beck, trading asErnst Jacobi & Company, K.G., for the infringement of those patents by theadmitted manufacture and sale of travelling cleaning mechanisms, three of whichwere installed during 1960 at Throstle Bank Mill, Hyde, Cheshire. Patent No.672,852 was applied for on 7th July 1950 and published on 28th May 1952. 20Patent No. 852,765 was applied for on 6th January 1959 and published on 2ndNovember 1960.

Both the patented inventions and the allegedly infringing machinery weremechanical systems of dealing with the cleaning problem presented by cotton fly.Only 99 per cent. of the total weight of the cotton submitted to spinning was 25converted into yarn, the remainder going off as fly. The fly rapidly formedextensive fluffy accumulations which became airborne if disturbed by currents ofair. and then tended to form larger particles known as a "boil-up." This resultedin the bunching of fly into bits of "slug." The pieces of slug could become attachedto the cotton roving or yarn, subsequently causing breakages at any stage of 30manufacture and adversely affecting the quality of the product and the rate ofproduction. Fly could also affect the working of the machinery by getting intobearings and switches and, if allowed to accumulate would adversely affect theatmosphere and working conditions of the mill.

The plaintiffs applied by motion for leave to amend the specification of patent No. 35852,765 and by an order dated 31st July 1963 it was directed that the motionshould be heard with the action and counterclaim.

The following documents are printed hereafter to complement the judgment: -

1. Complete specifications of patent No. 672,852, the first patent in suit.

2. Complete specification of patent No. 852,765, so far as material to these 40proceedings. This was the second patent in suit.

3. Two photographs showing the defendants' machines.

1. COMPLE,T'E SPECIFICATION No. 672,852

Improvements in Travelling Cleaners for Longitudinally AlignedMachines, such as Textile Machines 45

Dow



[1966] REPORTS OF PATENT, DESIGN AND TRADE MARK CASES

Parks-Cramer Company v. G. W. Thornton and Sons Ltd.(Patent, Infringement Ch.D.)

101

[No.6]

This invention relates to improvements in that known type of travelling cleanersfor longitudinally aligned machines, such as textile machines, which comprises amotor driven carriage travelling on a track located above the machines to becleaned and provided with a fan enclosed in a fan casing which has an inlet and

5 oppositely positioned downwardly directed outlet conduits through which thecurrents are directed downwardly against the machine as the carriage travels alongits track, thereby to blow lint, dust, etc., from the machine.

In usual installations of textile: machines a plurality of series of longitudinallyaligned machines are arranged in parallelism with the section of the trackway

10 extending longitudinally of the machines of each series and connected to thetrackway of another series by U-shaped bends to provide a continuous trackwayover all the machines.

In travelling cleaners of the above known type the conduits usually are providedwith nozzles which terminate above the top of the machines and also above the

15 heads of any operator who may be tending the machine, and as a result such nozzlesare ineffective in preventing the accumulation of lint, dust, etc., on those portionsof the machine which are not located in the direct paths of the blasts of air deliveredthrough the nozzles.

For example, in the case of a spinning frame, a cleaner such as above described20 is not fully effective in preventing an accumulation of lint upo'n the lower face of

the creel board, or upon the spools of roving located closely beneath the creelboard, or on the roving itself as it is being drawn from the spools.

The principal object of the present invention is to provide a travelling cleanerof the above known type in which some at least of the conduits through which air

25 is delivered are provided with cuff extensions of highly flexible material whichextend from the conduit downwardly and inwardly toward the machines andthrough which currents of air are directed laterally toward the machines at aheight to blow lint and dust from the creel boards and spools mounted thereon,said cuff extensions being yieldable upon impingement against an operator or any

30 other obstruction in their path of travel.In the accompanying drawings:Fig. 1 shows an end elevation of a spinning machine and trackway mounted

thereon supporting a travelling cleaner and illustrating the present invention asembodied in said cleaner for directing a current of air transversely across the

35 machine at a predetermined height;

Fig. 2 is an enlarged detail view, partially in transverse vertical section, andshowing in elevation a preferred form of flexible nozzle for directing the blast ofair transversely of the machine.

The spinning machine is of a usual character comprising end frames 1 having40 standards 2 mounted thereon supporting the usual creel boards 3 and 4 with

spools of roving 5 therebetween and posts 6 extending upwardly from the standards2 supporting a trackway 7 which as above described extend longitudinally of aplurality of or an aligned series of spinning frames. A carriage 8, which haswheels 9 mounted upon parallel angle bars 10 extending longitudinally of and

45 forming part of the trackway, is driven by a motor. A preferably horizontal fan11 is mounted upon a vertical shaft extending upwardly from the carriage 8 andis driven by the motor therein. A preferably cylindrical casing 12, which enclosesthe fan, is provided at its upper end with a central air inlet 13 and has at its lowerend downwardly and outwardly extending and downwardly converging conduits

50 14 and 15 for conducting currents of air produced by .the fan. The fan casing is

Dow



102


Parks-Cramer Company v. G. W. Thornton and Sons Ltd.(Patent, lniringement Ch.D.)

[1966]

also provided adjacent the carriage with outlets 16, diametrically disposed adjacentthe carriage 8, which are provided with adjustable dampers 17 for controlling anddirecting downward currents of air upon the machines therebeneath.

Each of the conduits 14 and 15, has, preferably adjustably, secured to its lowerend downwardly extending sleeve or nozzle 18 for directing the blast of air 5therefrom downwardly upon the side of the machine therebeneath and also adownwardly extending sleeve or nozzle 19 for directing a current of air transverselyacross the machine. The conduits 18 and 19 are so disposed as to provide a leadingand a trailing nozzle for each of the conduits 14 and 15 and the leading andtrailing nozzles are reversely arranged upon the conduits 14 and 15. 10

In the present invention either or both of the nozzles may be of highly flexiblematerial adapted to yield upon impingement of an obstruction in the path oftravel of the nozzles. Preferably the nozzles 18 of the machines are of rigidmaterial and terminate at such height as not to engage an obstruction such as anoperator passing through the aisle between groups of machines. Some at least of 15the nozzles 19, which conduct the blast of air transversely of the machines, are ofhighly flexible material which extends wen below the end of the nozzle 18 and isprovided with an inwardly curved and preferably tapering end portion which ispositioned at such predetermined height as to direct the air inwardly beneath thecreel board 4 thereby to prevent accumulation of lint upon the under face of the 20creel board or upon the spool of roving 5 and the strand 20 leading. therefromthrough the usual guide eye 21 and drawing mechanism 22 to the ring rail 23having the usual ring and traveller for spinning and winding the strand 20 uponthe bobbin 24.

Preferably the sleeve or nozzle 19 comprises a cuff of suitable woven fabric 25which desirably is impregnated with suitable material to make it impervious to theblast of air passing therethrough and is provided with means for retaining it inexpanded condition. As illustrated in Fig. 3 the end 25 of the cuff is folded arounda thin ring 26 of rigid material which is permanently secured within the foldsthereof. The cuff may be of any desired length to position its outlet at such 30predetermined height as to direct the current of air transversely across the machineclosely beneath the creel board of the spinning frame, or beneath similar obstructions in other machines, thereby effectively to prevent or remove accumulationupon parts thereof which otherwise would obstruct such transverse blasts of airThe cuff of flexible material will yield upon impingement with any obstruction in 35its path such as that due to the presence of an operator passing through the aislebetween adjacent aligned series of machines such as are illustrated in Fig. 4 of thedrawings.

To comply with section 47 of the Factories Act, 1937, any appropriate exhaustappliances, forming no part of the present invention, may be provided for collecting 40or otherwise preventing the lint, dust or the like blown away from a machine fromunduly contaminating the atmosphere. Such appliances usually operate by suction.

What we claim is:1. A travelling cleaner for blowing lint, dust, and other foreign particles from

longitudinal~y aligned machines,. such as textile machines, ef the type comprising 45a motor driven carnage travelling on a track located above the machines andprovided with a fan enclosed in a fan casing which has an inlet and oppositelypositioned downwardly directed outlet conduits, characterized in that each conduitpresents a rigid section terminating above the heads of the machine operators whenstanding, and some at least of the conduits are provided with a cuff extension of 50

Dow





103

[No.6]

highly flexible material which extends therefrom downwardly and inwardly towardthe machines to enable currents of air produced by the fan and discharged throughsaid cuff extensions to be directed laterally against the machines, said cuff extensionsbeing yieldable upon impingement against an operator or other obstruction in their

5 path .

.2. A travelling cleaner as described in claim 1, characterized in that each conduithas at its lower end a leading and a trailing nozzle, one of which is of rigidmaterial and terminates above the head of the operator tending the machine and

10 the other of which is of greater length than the rigid nozzle and is formed ofhighly flexible material and also extends downwardly and inwardly toward themachines for directing an air current transversely across the machines.

3. A travelling cleaner as described in claim I, characterized in that the flexiblecuff extension is formed of substantially impervious fabric and has means at itsdelivery end to hold said end in an expanded condition.

15 4. A travelling cleaner as described in claim 3, characterized in that the deliveryend of each flexible cuff extension is folded around and secured to a thin rigidring which serves to hold said end in an expanded condition .

5. A travelling cleaner substantially as shown and described with reference tothe accompanying drawings.

Dow



104



[1966]

/8

5

2. COMPLETE SPECIFICATION No. 852,765[In the following specification, the proposed amendments are indicated, additions

being in bold and deletions in italics.]Method of and Apparatus for Removing and collecting Lint, Dust and other like

Material from Floors and Machine Surfaces in Manufacturing Plants.This invention relates to a method of and apparatus for removing and collecting

lint, dust, and other like material from floors and machine surfaces in manufacturingplants , particularly in textile mills.

Many different types of textile machines are used for processing textile fibres toproduce yams therefrom and to produce the finished fabrics from the yarns. Such 10machines include pickers , card ing machines, drawing frames, combers, rovingframes, spinning frames, twister frames , winders, knitting machines and looms. Astextile fibres are processed on these and other types of machines, short brokenfibres or any other insecurely retained longer fibres tend to be thrown out to floatin the air as "fly " and settle as " lint " on various parts of the related machines , 15on the floor, under the machines, in the aisles between adjacent machines, and onother objects or surfaces in the room .

Many manufacturing plants employ some type of blower means in association withcertain of such machines or a travelling blower means which traverses rows of suchmachines for directing blasts of air against various parts of the machines for 20removing accumulations of lint , dust and the like from various parts of the machinesso that such material settle to the floor. Sweeping mill floors, or otherwise collectingfibres which have collected thereon, has always been a problem.

Various methods have been employed heretofore involving devices to moveaccumulations of lint and the like along the floor and between the machines, such 25devices having included means for directing blasts of air against the floor or beneaththe machines and toward a central location. While many of the prior devices haveperformed well in some respects, the blasts of air directed against or along the floorin the aisles between the machines have, in many instances, resulted in scattering

Dow



[1966] REPORTS OF PATENT, DESIGN AND TRADE MARK. CASES


105

[No.6]

lint and other light or fine particles so that many such particles would again settleupon the machines or textile material being processed to affect detrimentally thequality of the yarns or other products in process of manufacture. Even when movedto a central location, the problem of removing the collected lint still remained.

5 The use of portable suction devices for removing lint and the like from floors hasbeen proposed heretofore, but have proved largely impractical for use in textilemills. They are not fully automatic and considerable hand labour is required inconnection with their use. To our knowledge, there has never, heretofore, been asatisfactory method of cleaning the floors of a textile mill automatically.

10 Many attempts have been made to overcome the problem created by the accumu-lations of lint upon surfaces of textile machines and upon room surfaces, in whichautomatic air suction devices have been used to remove lint as it is shed or toremove it from machine surfaces where it may alight shortly after being shed, butto the best of our knowledge and belief no practical solution has been forthcoming

15 and no such device has ever been used commercially. For well known reasons, theuse of suction for cleaning surfaces may be satisfactory only when the nozzle ornozzles reach close to the surface to be cleaned.

As far as we know, no previous attempt has been made to lessen the lint problemin textile mills by the use of one or more travelling units, each of which draws lint

20 from the air into a container as the unit travels and delivers its collected lintperiodically into a cornman preferably stationary receptacle.

It is an object of this invention to provide a novel and efficient method of andapparatus for removing lint and other light material which may tend to accumulateon textile and analogous machines, on the floor under the machines, in the aisles

25 between adjacent machines and on other objects or surfaces in the room.

The present invention is a method of removing and collecting lint and the likeduring the production thereof from the floor of a room having a plurality of textilemachines arranged in rows therein, said method comprising producing a suctioncurrent closely adjacent the floor between said machines, while automatically and

30 repeatedly moving said suction current generally longitudinally of an aisle one ormore aisle's adjacent said machines by means moving in a predetermined path, andsimultaneously collecting the lint and the like sucked from the floor into an overhead travelling receptacle travelling with said means.

Preferably the machines are arranged in parallel rows and the suction current is35 may be moved in a generally transverse oscillatory manner as 'Nell as longitudinally

of and between adjacent rows of said machines, the material collected in the overhead travelling receptacle being discharged periodically therefrom into a stationarycontainer remote from the machines.

The present invention is also travelling suction cleaning apparatus for the disposal40 disposition of lint and other light material in a textile mill having textile machines

arranged in rows therein comprising a suction blower having a casing, at least oneflexible duct depending from the casing and having a floor-suction nozzle at itslower portion, means supporting the suction blower and traversing it repeatedly ina predetermined path over the machines with the nozzle opening moving generally

4~ longitudinally of an aisle adjacent said machine and sufficiently close to surfaces tobe cleaned to cause lint and other light material on said surfaces the floor to besucked into the nozzle opening by the suction blower, and a collection chambermounted to travel with said blower, and adapted to receive material picked up bysaid nozzle.

Dow



106

[No.6] REPORTS OF PATENT~ DESIGN AND TRADE MARK CASES


[1966]

Embodiments of the invention will now be described, by way of example, withreference to the accompanying drawings, in which:-

Fig. 1 is a schematic plan view showing an illustrative embodiment of the presentinvention employed in combination with a plurality of rows of textile machines andincluding a common suction collection unit; 5

Fig. 2 is an enlarged plan view of the area identified by the numeral 2 in Fig 1,showing the travelling cleaner in registration with the inlet of a stationary collectionreceptacle with door means of the travelling collection chamber and the receptaclein opened position;

Fig. 3 is an elevation taken substantially alone line 3-3 in Fig 2, being partially 10in section and with portions of the suction tubes and support for the trackwaybroken away;

Fig. 7 is an enlarged fragmentary elevation of the upper portion of the travellingcleaner shown in Fig. 3, with portions broken away and in section and showingthe door of the travelling collection chamber in closed position; 15

Fig. 10 is an enlarged view similar to the right-hand portion of Fig. 2, but showinga spinning machine between modified dependant tubes provided with nozzles forsucking lint from various elements of the machine as well as from the floor;

Fig. 11 is an enlarged longitudinal sectional view, through one of the elevatednozzles, taken substantially along line 11-11 in Fig. 10; 20

Fig. 12 is an enlarged sectional plan view of one of the floor-sweeping nozzles,taken along line 12-12 in Fig. 10, and

Fig. 13 is a fragmentary vertical sectional view taken along line 13-13 in Fig12 and showing means for sucking" blown-up" lint into the tube.

Referring to Fig. 1, a layout of several rows of textile or other machines is shown 25and several travelling suction cleaners devised for carrying out the method of thepresent invention are shown in association therewith, this layout being typical ofan arrangement of textile machinery, such as spinning and twisting machines, in aroom of a textile mill. There are eight rows of longitudinally extending spinningframes or other textile machines shown in Fig. 1 which are respectively designated 30at a. to h. Although the manner in which the present cleansing system is installedmay be varied, in this instance three of the travelling suction cleaners of the invention are shown in association with the eight rows of machines, which cleaners arerespectively broadly designated at A, A' and A". These three travelling cleanersare mounted on respective sets of endless trackways B, B' and B" which are spaced 35above the respective pairs of rows of machines d, e, Q', b, and g, h, there; being notrackways required above the rows c and f, as will be explained hereinafter.

Hollow or tubular stationary waste receptacles C, C' and C" are located adjacentthe respective trackways B, B' and B". In this instance, the stationary waste receptacles C, C' and C" are positioned adjacent corresponding looped end portions of 40the respective trackways B, B' and B", and corresponding ends of the stationarywaste receptacles communicate with a duct 20 suitably supported adjacent the rowsof machines a-h. The duct 20 extends to a suitable waste collecting station 21shown schematically as a suction collecting unit in Fig. 1.

Since the travelling cleaners A, A' and A", the respective trackways B, B' and 45B" and the respective stationary waste receptacles C, C' and C" may be identicalonly the travelling cleaner A, its trackway B and the stationary waste receptacle C

Dow





107

[No.6]

will be described in detail and, where applicable, the travelling cleaners A' and A"and associated elements will bear the same reference characters.

As best shown in Figs. 2, 3 and 7, the suction travelling cleaner A comprisesair circulating means including a centrifugal blower in the form of a volute upper

5 blower casing 25 having a substantially circular body 26 with which an offset outletportion 27 communicates. The upper end of the blower casing 25 is closed,preferably by a removable cover or plate 30, which may be removed for cleaningthe interior of the blower casing 25 and an impeller wheel 31 therein. The impellerwheel 31 is fixed on the shaft 32 of an electric motor 33 mounted upon a carriage

10 47 of the suction cleaner A.

The blower casing 25 rests upon and is suitably secured to a substantially circularcentral portion 34 of a suction casing broadly designated at 35, the lower wall ofthe central portion 34 being suitably secured to a flange or ring 37 encircling theenlarged upper portion of electric motor 33. The flange 37 is suitably secured to

IS electric motor 33 by any suitable means, such as brackets 40. It will be observedin Fig. 7 that the adjacent walls of blower casing 25 and suction casing 35 are cutaway to provide an air inlet opening 41 through which air is drawn by impellerwheel 31 to be discharged through outlet portion 27 (Fig. 2) of blower casing 25.

As best shown in Fig. 3, the portion 34 of the suction casing 35 is provided with20 a pair of diametrically opposed, radially and outwardly extending ducts 43, 44 (see

also Fig. 2) which communicate with the central portion 34 of suction housing 35and each of which curves downwardly at its free end. The free end of each of theducts 43, 44 has a tube 45, preferably of pliable or flexible construction, communicatively connected thereto and depending therefrom, to the lower end of which a

25 flared nozzle 46 is communicatively connected.

The carriage 47 (Figs. 3, 7 and 8) has suitable carriage rollers or wheels 50journalled thereon which ride upon tracks 51, 52. Tracks 51, 52 comprise trackwayB and are supported by suitable V-shaped brackets 53 mounted on posts 54, onlyone of each being shown in Figs. 3 and 7. Electric motor 33 drives shaft 32 for

30 rotating the fan or impeller wheel 31 and one or more of the carriage rollers 50 bysuitable conventional gearing within the carriage 47 for imparting traversing movement to the travelling cleaner along the trackway B.

It will be noted that the lower end of each nozzle 46 is disposed in close proximityto the floor F on which the machines of Fig. 1 are located. However, since the tubes

35 45 are preferably of pliable or flexible construction, it is contemplated that thenozzle 46 may be manually traversed over and closely adjacent many elements ofmachines over which the blower and carriage travels. As the travelling cleaner Amoves along trackway B, impeller wheel 31 creates a continuous suction currentat each nozzle 46 which causes lint and other light particles upon the floor F to

40 be drawn into each nozzle 46, through the respective tube 45, into ducts 43 or 44and into the central portion 34 of suction casing 35. The suction current then passesupwardly through opening 41 (Fig. 7) and into the blower casing 25 where it isconverted into a blowing or positive air pressure current which passes outwardlythrough the outlet portion 27 of blower casing 25.

45 Since each suction tube 45 (Fig. 3) is flexible or pliable, it is subject to consider-able swaying under influence of chance air currents in the aisles through which itpasses, centrifugal effect when going around a track bend, or slight variation in therelative height of the two tracks 51, 52, which variation may be purposely introduced

Dow



108



[1966]

when the tracks are installed. For one or more of these reasons, movement of thetravelling suction cleaner A along trackway B is usually accompanied by a variableside-sway of each tube 45 and nozzle 46, with the result that, on repeated trips, thenozzle removes lint and other light' particles substantially throughout the entirewidth of the usual aisle and even to some extent from beneath the machines. It is 5contemplated that mechanical means, other than variation in the relative height oftracks 51, 52 may be employed to produce oscillatory transverse movement of eachsuction nozzle 46 as it travels longitudinally of a corresponding aisle.

Communicatively connected to the outlet portion 27 of blower casing 25 is abox-like travelling collector, collection chamber or confined collection zone broadly 10designated at 60 and comprising opposed side walls 61, a top wall 62 and a bottomwall 63. An inverted substantially U-shaped hood is suitably secured to andextends outwardly from side walls 61 and top wall 62 of collection chamber 60.

* * * * *As heretofore stated, it has become common practice in most textile mills to use

travelling blowers which direct blasts of air against and beneath machines to prevent 15accumulations of lint thereon. The present apparatus may be economically installedin such mills, since the trackways already in the mills may be utilized for thispurpose.

In Figs. 10 to 13, a somewhat modified form of the invention is illustrated inassociation with a spinning frame, typical of various types of textile machines, and 20which, in this instance, includes a creel 140 which supports packages 141 of textilematerials from which strands Y of roving, yarn, or the like are drawn by sets ofdrafting rolls generally designated at 142. The strands of textile material are draftedas they pass through the drafting rolls 142 and then extend downwardly to bobbins143 on spindles, to which they are directed by means of the usual rings and travellers 25carried by a ring rail 146. As is usual, the ring rail 146 is vertically reciprocated fordirecting the yarn to the bobbins 143.

The travelling cleaner illustrated in Fig. 10 is substantially the same as thetravelling cleaner disclosed in Figs. 1 to 9, with the exception of the tubes or sleevesdepending from the ducts or arms of the lower or suction chamber. Accordingly, 30with the exception of the suction tubes and associated elements in Figs. 10 to 13,all remaining elements of the travelling cleaner shall bear the same referencecharacters as are applied to like parts in Figs. 1 to 9, in order to avoid repetitivedescription.

The modified form of suction tubes in Figs. 10, 12 and 13 are broadly designated 35at 150, 150'. The tubes 150, 150', like the tubes 45 in Fig. 3, are communicativelyconnected to the curved ends of the respective arms 43, 44. Since both the tubes150, 150' are identical only the elements associated with tube 150 will be describedin detail and like elements associated with tube 150' will bear the same referencecharacters with the prime notation added. 40

Tube 150 is also made of a material which is preferably flexible or pliable butsufficiently rigid in order to support a plurality of vertically spaced, intermediateand substantially laterally or inwardly extending nozzles. Two such nozzles areshown in Fig. 10 which are respectively indicated at 151, 152. Nozzles 151, 152are elevated with respect to a floor sweeping nozzle 153 connected to the lower end 45of tube 150. Nozzle 153 may be substantially the same as the nozzle 46 in Fig. 3.

Dow





109

[No.6]

The raised or intermediate nozzles 151, 152 may be of various lengths, as shown inFig. 10, in order that the open free ends thereof move closely adjacent particularelements of the corresponding machines from which lint or other light material isto be withdrawn by suction currents in the nozzles 151, 152.

5 As shown in Fig. 11, each nozzle such as 152 preferably has a relatively narrowor somewhat restricted but flared free end portion 155 thereon so as to effect amaximum amount of suction or negative pressure closely adjacent the variousmachine elements past which it moves, so that the suction currents draw lint andthe like into and through nozzles 152, into the tube 150 and, thence, into and

10 through suction chamber 35. The impeller in casing 25 then blows the lint intothe collection chamber 60.

It frequently happens that a "blow-up" of lint is produced adjacent the pathof travel of the sweeping nozzle 153 as it traverses an aisle between adjacentmachines. That is, small particles of lint and other light material are caused to

15 rise from the floor adjacent the machines due to chance currents of air which mightbe produced merely by a person walking adjacent the machines. Also, such" blowups" may be produced by conventional blower-type travelling cleaners when suchare used in association with the present suction cleaning apparatus. The nozzle 153must move in relatively close proximity to the floor F in order that the suction

20 current thereat is effective in drawing lint and the like into the nozzle 153. Therefore, in order that lint and the like, which is caused to float in the air immediatelyabove the nozzle 153 due to "blow-ups," is attracted to and drawn into the tube150, the side wall of tube 150 is provided with a plurality of relatively small portsor suction openings 157 therein, these ports 157 preferably being arranged in one

25 or more vertical rows adjacent the lower portion of the tube 150 as shown in Fig.13. A suitable baffle or air deflector element 160 is preferably provided whichextends across the inside of the lower portion of tube 150 to produce a somewhatconfined suction zone inwardly of the ports 157, which suction zone is open at itsupper end and is closed at its lower end preferably by curving the lower portion of

30 the baffle 160 outwardly and suitably attaching the same to the inner wall oftube 150.

It is thus seen that, as the travelling suction cleaner moves along trackway B withthe modified form of tube 150 thereon, lint and other light material is sucked fromthe floor by the respective nozzle 153 while lint which may have scattered above

35 the level of the nozzle 153 is drawn into the openings 157 and any lint which maytend to accumulate on the ring rail, the rings, the travellers and the drafting rollsof a spinning frame, for example, as well as other elements of the machine as maybe desired, will be drawn into the corresponding intermediate or auxiliary nozzles,and all such lint and other light material will be carried into the collection chamber

40 60 by the suction current produced in the suction casing 35 and converted to ablowing current in the blower casing 25.

Although the two forms of the present invention illustrated in the annexeddrawings are shown equipped with but a single suction nozzle for traversing thefloor in each aisle, it is contemplated that several such nozzles may be used which

45 may depend from a common duct extending from the central portion of the suctioncasing or from independent ducts extending from the central portion of the suctioncasing.

Also, the travelling suction cleaner may be equipped with a nozzle or nozzleswhich traverse the aisle along only one side for a row of machines, as may be

50 desirable in removing lint from the floor in aisles between rows of looms. It is also

Dow



110



[1966]

contemplated that, in some instances, the present apparatus described herein maybe combined with other types of apparatus in which lint is blown or sucked frommachine surfaces and / or from other room surfaces.

In the drawings and specification there has been set forth a preferred embodiment of the invention and, although specific terms are employed, they are used in 5a generic and descriptive sense only and not for purposes of limitation, the scopeof the invention being defined in the claims.

WHAT WE CLAIM IS :

1. A method of removing and collecting lint and the like during the productionthereof from the floor of a room having a plurality of textile machines arranged in 10rows therein, said method comprising producing a suction current closely adjacentthe floor between said machines, while aatomatieafty and repeatedly moving saidsuction current generally longitudinally of an aisle one' or more aisles adjacent saidmachines by means moving in a predetermined path and simultaneously collectingthe lint and the like sucked from the floor into an overhead travelling receptacle 15travelling with said means.

2. A method as claimed in claim 1, said machines being arranged in one or morerows, comprising moving said suction current in a generally transverse oscillatorymanner as well as longitudinally of and adjacent at least one side of said row orbetween adjacent rows of said machines. 20

3. A method as claimed in claim 2, including periodically discharging collectedmaterial into a stationary container.

4. A method as claimed in claim 2 or 3 in which said suction current is in theform a substantially vertical upward stream closely adjacent the floor betweenand beneath said rows of machines. 25

4. 5. A method as claimed in claim 3 or 4 in which said overhead travellingreceptacle moves with the suction current and the collected material is automaticallydischarged therefrom at predetermined intervals, and the material so discharged isconveyed to a stationary container which is remote from the machines.

5. 6. A method as claimed in claim 3 or 4 any of claims 3 to 5, in which said 30suction current is produced by at least one suction nozzle, said overhead travellingreceptacle is above the level of the machines and discharge of the collected materialis effected under air pressure.

6. 7. A method as claimed in any of claims 3 to 6 5, in which the suction currentconverted to a blowing current and as such is utilised for exhausting the collected 35material from the overhead travelling receptacle.

7. 8. A method as claimed in claim 7 6, in which the inlet of a blower is usedto produce the suction current and the outlet of the blower used to collect thematerial picked up by the suction.

8. 9. TraveIling suction cleaning apparatus for the disposal disposition of lint 40and other like material in a textile mill having textile machines arranged in rowstherein comprising a suction blower having a casing, at least one flexible ductdepending from the casing and having a floor-suction nozzle at its lower portion,means supporting the suction blower and traversing it repeatedly in a predeterminedpath over the machines with the nozzle opening moving generally longitudinally of an 45

Dow





111

[No.6]

: :

!!o l

Dow



112


Parks-Cramer Company v. G. W. Thornton and Sons Ltd.(Patent. Infringement Ch.D.)

[1966]

2J.q.10

~G:zi.ti

IWDCJ

Dow





113

[No.6]

aisle adjacent said machines sufficiently close to the floor suriaces to be cleaned tocause lint and other light material on the floor said surfaces to be sucked into thenozzle opening by the suction blower, and a collection chamber mounted to travelwith said blower, and adapted to receive: material picked up by said nozzle.

5 9. 10. Apparatus according to claim 9 8 in which said collection chamber isprovided with a normally closed moveable door, and means operable automaticallyfor periodically momentarily opening said door to discharge the collected materialfrom the collection chamber.

10. 11. Apparatus according to claim 9 8 or 10 9, in which the suction blower10 is a combination suction and blower device, from which the material is blown into

the collection chamber and the duct is flexible and communicates with the suctionside of said device.

11. 12. Apparatus according to any of claims 9 8 to 11 10 including at least oneadditional nozzle communicating with said duct on a level above the floor-section

15 nozzle and adapted to traverse elements of said machines in sufficiently close relationthereto to suck lint and other material therefrom.

12. 13. Apparatus according to claim 12 11 wherein said duct includes a tube tothe lower end of which said floor-suction nozzle is communicatively connected, andthe wall of said tube adjacent said floor-suction nozzle has a purality of suction

20 ports therethrough whereby fly and other light particles above the level of themouth of said floor-suction nozzle may be sucked into the tube through said ports.

13. 14. Apparatus according to claim 13 12, in which said tube is provided witha baffle within the same spaced from said ports in such manner as to form a suctionchannel inside said tube communicating with said ports.

25 14. 15. Apparatus according to any of claims 9 8 to 14 13, in which said chamberis normally closed to the discharge of collected material therefrom, and means isprovided automatically operable for periodically opening the chamber to dischargethe material therefrom.

15. 16. Apparatus according to any of claims 9 8 to 15 14, including a pair of30 ducts depending from said casing astraddle a row of machines.

16. 17. Apparatus according to any of claims 10 9 to 16 15, including means forreceiving and storing material discharge from said collection chamber.

17. 18. Apparatus according to any of claims 11 10 to /7 16 in which saidcombined suction and blower device comprises a blower moveable along a trackway

35 and a suction chamber communicating with the inlet of said blower, said collectionchamber communicating with the outlet of said blower whereby material suckedinto said nozzle is conveyed to said suction chamber, through the blower and intosaid collection chamber.

18. 19. Apparatus according to claim 18 17, in which said blower includes a40 blower casing having an impeller therewithin, said blower casing having thereon

an air outlet portion to which is connected said collection chamber, the latter havingat least one at least partially foraminated wall thereon whereby the impeller causesair to flow into and through the collection chamber.

19. 20. Apparatus according to claim 19 18, in which hollow arms extend out45 wardly from the suction chamber, each arm having communicating therewith and

depending therefrom a duct on the lower end of which is a nozzle, whereby lint

Dow



114


Parks-Cramer Company v. G. W. Thornton and Sons Ltd.(Patent, Infringement CIl.D.)

[1966]

and other light material sucked into the nozzles passes through the ducts andthrough the suction, and the air blast from the impeller conveys said materialthrough the blower casing and into the collection chamber.

20. 21. Apparatus according to claim 9 8 and any of claims 17 16 to 20 19 inwhich said material receiving and storing means comprises at least one waste 5receptacle disposed adjacent the path of travel of said collection chamber andconnected with a source of suction, proximal portions of the collection chamberand the receptacle having closable openings therein, and means operable automatically upon registration of the closable openings of the collection chamber and thereceptacle for momentarily opening the closable openings whereby the material flows 10from the collection chamber into the receptable.

21. 22. Apparatus according to claim 21 20 including a moveable door for theopening of said receptacle, and means operable automatically upon registration ofthe collection chamber with the receptacle for momentarily opening said closuremeans. 15

22. 23. Apparatus according to claim 18 17 and any of claims 19 18 to 22 21,including a motor driven carriage mounted for travel along said trackway, saidcarriage including said impeller.

23. 24. Apparatus according to claim 10 9 and any of claims 18 17 to 21 20including a shifter rod carried by said blower, a mechanical connection between 20said normally closed movable door and said shifter rod, and means on said trackway for moving said shifter rod in one direction relative to the blower for openingsaid door upon registration of the opening of said collection chamber with theopening of said receptacle and for then moving said rod in the opposite direction forclosing said door whereby material is sucked from the floor by the nozzle, delivered 25to and collected in the collection chamber and periodically discharged from thecollection chamber into the receptacle.

24. 25. Apparatus according to claim 24 23 in which said means for moving saidshifter rod comprises a pair of relatively closely spaced fingers carried by andprojecting from said trackway adjacent said receptacle, a normally stationary 30rotatable cam carried by said blower, follower means carried by said shifter rodand engaging said cam, and means successively engageable with said fingers forimparting successive steps in rotation to said cam.

25. 26. Apparatus according to claims 22 21 and 24 23 including an actuatingarm connected with said door and projecting from the receptacle, and means 35moveable with said blower and engageable with said actuating arm for momentarilymoving said door to open position as the collection chamber moves adjacent thereceptacle.

26. 27. Apparatus according to claim 26 25 including resilient means normallymaintaining said door in said normally closed position, and said means engageable , 40with said actuating arm being moveable out of engagement with the actuating arm torelease the closure member and permit the same to return to closed position as thecollection chamber moves beyond the receptacle.

3. THE DEFEND'ANTS' MACHIN.E,SPhotographs on the following two pages illustrate the alleged infringements. 45

Dow





115

[No.6]

The remaining facts appear from the arguments of counsel and the judgment.

Kenneth Johnson, Q.c. and Stephen Gratwick , instructed by Bristows, Cooke& Carpmael, appeared for the plaintiffs. Guy Aldous, Q.c. and Douglas Falconer,instructed by McKenna & Co., for Taylor , Hindle & Rhodes (Manchester) , appeared

5 for the defendants.

Johnston, Q.C.-The patents in suit provided the first effective mechanical meansof dealing with the long standing problem of fly in the cotton industry and themerit of the inventions is indicated by the fact that at the spinning stage ofcotton production manual collection of fly by brushing and sweeping employs

10 about 50 per cent. of the operatives' time. Consideration of prior art shows thatthe Walker machine was in use in the United States from about 1930, employinga track device above the spinning frames with a travelling motor and fan toblow a curtain of air across the top of the frame, but did not initially includedevices for directing the blast of air to specific points. It was followed in the

15 United States by Hodge, using a track on the spinning frame itself, with a pairof adjustable nozzles directing the blast of air downwards on either side of theframe, but no very substantial improvement was achieved because, to be reallyeffective at the accumulation points 2 or 3 feet down the frame, the blast of airwould have needed to be far too strong at the top . The distinguishing feature of

20 the first patent in suit is the provision of currents of air directed laterally, andthis is done by the use of flexible sleeves with nozzles terminating in the aisle spaceat a height below the heads of the operatives.

Dow



116



[1966]

Previous devices for the collection of fly from the floor have included commercially unsuccessful types of vacuum cleaner pushed over the floor, machinesfor collection at particular points of accumulation and suction devices built intothe floor itself with provision for blowing the fly along the floor into them. TheSharer machine pleaded as prior user is an example of the idea of collecting 5locally, but it does not deal with all the fly which escapes onto the floor. A Germanspecification of a patent taken out by the defendants provided a travelling suctioncleaner on the side of the spinning frame. The second patent in suit is a travellingsuction cleaner showing improvement over prior art by reason of long flexiblesleeves, extending right down into the aisles between rows of spinning frames, and 10which may, because of their flexibility, safely hit the operatives. It is used inconjunction with 70 per cent. of U.S. spinning frames and 50 per cent. of U.K.post-war spinning frames, to effect a saving of about one quarter of the operatives'time.

The proposed amendments to the claims of the first patent are by way of 15explanation and fall within section 31(1). They are intended to bring out that

Dow





117

[No.6]

where there are rows of machines, the invention traverses the aisles automaticallyand repeatedly and that this is effective to clean the floor.

Recent cases establish infringement of claim 1 of the first patent in suit (theonly claim of this patent still alleged to be infringed). The infringing device uses

5 a single track to traverse a plurality of machines arranged in rows. The infringingdevice uses a pair of fans to perform exactly the same function for which thepatented device uses one fan. The variation is a non-essential feature and inVan der Lely N. V. v. Bamfords Ltd., [1963] R.P.C. 61 it was held that the doctrineof mechanical equivalents still stands. [Lloyd-Jacob, J.-The difficulty is that of

10 deciding what is essential and what is non-essential.] It is necessary to look at thespecification as a whole and pick out the essential combination of features. Thequestion is whether the machine as a whole is intended to obtain the same resultby the same means so as to fall within the doctrine of mechanical equivalents asstated by Lord Wright, M.R. in Photophone Ltd. v. Gaumont-British Picture

15 Corporation Ltd. (1936) 53 R.P.C. 167 at 189.

Evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs was given by Messrs. Frank Heywood, FrankCharnley, George Battersby, Frank Atkinson, John Harrap, Albert Davis, JohnAnthony Flynn, and Paul Bell. On behalf of the defendants evidence was givenby Mr. John Stanley Taylor.

20 Aldous, Q.C.-l'he first patent is invalid for lack of subject matter. The useof a yieldable cover for a sleeve directed to the creel area is an obvious device toprevent the sleeve from breaking anything it might hit. The first plaintiffs werethe unsuccessful defendants in a U.S. appeal against the validity of U.S. patentNo. 2,524,797 of which the relevant claim is coterminous with claim 1 of the

25 first patent in suit. In The American Monorail Company v. Parks-Cramer Company245 F. 739 U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, held that the claim was invalidfor want of invention on the principle that to grant a single party a monopoly ofevery slight advance made, except where the exercise of invention somewhat aboveordinary mechanical or engineering skill is distinctly shown, is unjust: I submit

30 that the same principle could well be applicable to English law.

The words highly flexible in the specification are ambiguous in that they do notdefine the scope of the monopoly. A highly flexible material must be yieldable,something with a high degree of flexibility, or which is more flexible than flexible,but there is no precise definition. The words "oppositely positioned downwardly

35 directed outlet conduits" in claim 1 (page 102 line 47) are capable ofthree meanings. One meaning could be that the outlets should be one on eachside of the machine, as submitted by the plaintiffs, or they could be positionedopposite to the inlet or that they could be diametrically opposite to the fan casing.

Claim 1 has also the limitation of a single fan construction expressed in line 47.40 The defendants do not make a construction of that kind; the allegedly infringing

machine has two fans with two casings. There is a textual difference whichever ofthe three meanings is given to claim 1. The principal of mechanical equivalentsapplies only to the unessential parts of an invention, as expressed by Romer L.J. inPhotophone Ltd. v. Gaumont-British Picture Corporation Ltd. (1936) 53 R.P.C. 167

45 at 197, with reference to Marconi v. British Radio (1911) 28 R.P.C. 181 at 217.[Lloyd-Jacob, I.-There is no great difficulty in construing the claims. The difficultyis in assessing the weight to be attached to the various integers of the claims, in

Dow



118



[1966]

deciding which are essential having regard to the real inventive claim.] Therecomes a point at which in substance the infringer is within the claim. [Lloyd-Jacob,J.-Do you think the same consideration would arise with regard to the type ofapparatus?] The substantiality doctrine applies to that part of the apparatuswhich is new and has no application to the type of machine to which the invention 5is applied. The substance of what constitutes infringement is left to the court;Birmingham Sound Producers Ltd. v. Collaro Ltd., [1956] R.P.C. 232 at 244. Youhave first to construe the claim and then look at the claim to find the monopoly,E.M.I. v. Lissen (1939) 56 R.P.C. 23 at 41. I rely on the majority affirmation ofthe doctrine of substantiality in Van der Lely N. V. v. Bamiords [1963] R.P.C. 1061 (H.L.).

There is room for the court to hold there is infringement even where there isno textual infringement. Where there is a combination of features what is essentialmay be the combination as a whole. The difference between the one fan andtwo fan constructions does not affect the airflow, but the plaintiffs' publicity 15literature points out advantages of the single fan construction. If there is anydoubt at all as to whether the difference is one of substance, the burden is on thepatentee to prove infringement. A second point on non-infringement relates to thecuff extension. The defendants' machinery does not include any cuff extension with-in the meaning of claim 1; the outlet marked 23 (in Figure 2) is a long tube, 24 20is shaped as a fish tail nozzle, and none of the outlets of the defendants' machineryis shaped as a cuff. A third point on non-infringement is that none of the outletsof the defendants' machinery is highly flexible.

The claims of the second patent are invalid and would remain invalid afteramendment. It is not the practice of the court to amend a claim which would 25remain invalid.

With reference to the patent in general, the mere idea of using a vacuum cleanerto clean the floor cannot be inventive; it is commonplace at all material times. Theidea of an overhead vacuum cleaner on rails was public knowledge, and was usedby the Walker and Smith automatic devices and the Schweiter machine which 30required the cleaner to be moved by hand. The movement of a suction fan in acasing on a machine on rails over the aisles was commonplace. Such was commonplace with long tubes hanging down into the aisles and moving along the aisles.The Parks-Cramer device of the first patent was in regular use in this countryand by time the second patent was introduced there was no objection to the 35tubes in the aisles; this argument is in no way negatived by the commercialutility of the second patent. There can be no inventive 'step in the concept ofremoving fly automatically by a vacuum cleaner as that is inherently obvious. Therecan be no invention in having a vacuum cleaner for cleaning the floor moving automatically on overhead rails, once overhead. rail cleaners are in use, unless the 40invention involves difficulties which the patentee has to overcome. There is nothinginventive in any of the claims alleged to have been infringed (except perhaps claim2) because these claims relate to a method or an apparatus of a kind which wouldnecessarily and obviously flow from an automatic overhead vacuum cleaner. Claim2 is too wide because it covers moving the nozzles sideways by hand, as 45contemplated at page 107 line 36.

Johnston, Q.C., in reply-The longstanding problem of cotton fly was intensified by the need for

faster machines and by relatively greater attenuation. In 1944 the Plattreport indicated that labour and costing problems in this country could be 50

Dow




Parks-Cramer Company v. G. W. Thornton, and Sons Ltd.(Patent, Infringement Ch.D.)

119

[No.6]

reduced by the introduction of mechanical cleaning. Foreign experience isrelevant to the validity of the first patent because all spinning machines arein their principles the same. The prior art quoted relates to wide practice inthe United States not to practice here. Hodge is the only prior art against the

5 first patent. Compared with the pleaded document of Hodge, (ignoring laterdevelopments of Hodge in which the sleeves were lengthened), the first patentshows a marked advantage and saving in operativestime because it was effectiveunder the creel boards while Hodge was only effective higher up the spinning frame.The first patent is not an obvious device: seventeen years elapsed between the

10 introduction of Walker machines in 1930 and the conception of the first patentin the U.S. in 1947. It may have been scientifically possible but in practice it wasthought to be impossible to enter the operatives' aisle space. The objection wasovercome by making the sleeves flexible. The words " oppositely positioned downwardly directed outlet conduits" are not ambiguous. In this specification the

15 only functional construction is one on each side of the spinning machine or abalanced arrangement of a plurality of outlet conduits on each side of the spinningmachine. The use of the word "cuff" or "cuff extension" does not imply anydefinitive length as compared with the sleeve to which it is attached. The term"highly flexible" in relation to the sleeves is defined functionally in the specifi-

20 cation and it means yieldable upon impingement against an operator or otherobstruction. On utility I submit that there is the advantage over Hodge. Thepatent is infringed because the defendants' machinery uses the same inventivestep to produce the same result by substantially the same means. The use of a construction with two fans is an immaterial variation and does not avoid infringement.

25 The second patent was a meritorious solution of the problem of collecting flyfrom the floor. It is an ex post facto argument to allege that the attachment ofvacuum cleaners is obvious. Manually propelled vacuum cleaners were not usedand attempts were made to collect the fly by blowing it along the floor: theplaintiffs themselves marketed a device for this purpose. The second patent is

30 not just a vacuum cleaner. It does not attempt to clean the floor by passing overthe whole of it; by passing automatically and repeatedly down the aisles it hasthe effect of cleaning fly off the whole floor while only part of it is traversed.Claim 1 as proposed to be amended is infringed in that the defendants' apparatuscleans the whole floor by traversing the aisles in exactly the same way as the inven-

35 tion of the second patent. The assertion that claim 2 is infringed cannot be pressedbecause the extent of the oscillatory movement of the trunks of the defendants'apparatus is variable, but it is plain that the trunks do sway as a result of centrifugal force and this is sufficient to bring them within the description. Itis alleged that the proposed amendments of claim 8 are not admissible in that

40 they must broaden the claim to exclude surfaces other than floor surfaces. Claim8 refers to the invention in its main form and has always referred to the floorsurfaces only. The fulfilment of all the objects of the specification cannot beimposed on the leading apparatus claim, although the objects of the specificationdo include manual cleaning of the machine surfaces. .

45 Judgment was reserved and delivered on 18th March 1965.

Lloyd-Jacob, J.-By this action, the plaintiffs, the grantees and assignees ofletters patent Nos. 672,852 and 852,765, seek the relief appropriate to the infringement of a valid patent monopoly against the defendants, the erectors and the manufacturing suppliers respectively of certain travelling cleaning mechanisms, three of

50 which were installed during 1960 at the works of Ashton Bros. & Co., Throstle BankMill, Hyde, Cheshire, and which were additionally advertised for sale and supply

Dow



120



[1966]

in a trade journal circulating in the United Kingdom. No questions arise on theentitlement of the plaintiffs to sue and the acts which are alleged to constituteinfringement are not now in issue. The defendants assert the invalidity of bothlett~rs patent in suit, counterclaim for their revocation, and additionally and alternatively contend that the acts complained of do not constitute infringement of 5either of the patent monopolies.

Both specifications relate to cleaning devices, the earlier being concerned with thecleaning of certain types of textile machinery and the later to the cleaning of bothmachine and floor surfaces in mills wherein such machinery is operated. The generalnature of the problem to which the use of these cleaning devices relates can usefully 10be exemplified in relation to cotton. Samples have been exhibited of the fibre indifferent stages of its progress from natural boll to a wound package adapted forloom weaving. The boll, as it is termed, 1S the ball-line agglomeration of fibrousmaterial harvested by picking from the cotton plant, and this is normally treated atthe plantation by a ginning process intended to remove unwanted seed. This ginned 15cotton is baled and in that form is a standard article of commerce passing throughmerchants and factors to spinners. Certain initial processes of further cleaning andblending, wherein any remaining seed, leaf and dust are sought to be removed anda scutcher lap formed, and the next succeeding treatment of carding whereby thescutcher lap is converted into a light untwisted rope of reasonably clean cotton 20fibres known as a sliver, call for no detailed description, nor is it necessary forpresent purposes to do more than mention the means whereby the sliver undergoesconversion to a form adapted for the high-speed drafting or spinning, as it is called,to which the alleged invention here in suit particularly relate. The sliver is operatedupon by draw frames, in which a number of slivers are passed through rollers 25revolving at differential speeds to impart a draw or extension of length of an ordersubstantially equivalent to the number of slivers being united. The draw framesliver so formed is then passed through a speed frame wherein by one or moresuccessive treatments it is further extended and given a slight twist for bettercoherence. The products of one type of such treatment-by passage through a slub- 30bing frame-is one of the samples exhibited. Such a product is frequently furtherdrawn and additionally twisted to a small degree by passage through intermediateframes, from which the emergent rope, referred to as a roving, is wound uponbobbins, in which form it is adapted to be submitted to the action of the spinningmachines, properly so called, which are normally of one or other of two types 35designated ring and mule frames. Three photographs have been exhibited, of whichone shows the general lay-out of a mill adapted to perform all the above operationsupon initially baled cotton, the second shows a block of ring frames, and the thirdshows a more detailed picture upon which the operative parts of the ring framemechanism are identified. The roving bobbins are stored until required in, and 40when in operation are located upon, spindles at the upper part of the frame knownas the creel, from which the roving is taken through a system of drafting rollers(whereby a draw of the order of 30 to 60 times or so is imparted to produce thecount required for the product) to form a fine web of fibres gradually narrowinginto a thread which then passes through a thread wire or guide mounted on a lappet 45and then through a traveller on to a bobbin rotating at a speed of several thousandrevolutions a minute, whereby it is both twisted and collected. When the bobbin isfully wound it is removed, or " doffed" as the operation is normally termed, and afresh spool made available for continuance of spinning. It is customary for thewound bobbin to be submitted to such re-winding operations as are necessary to 50present the yarn in proper.form for cOJ?-version into f~bric or what~ver its int~nde.dend use is to be. The rotation of the spindles upon which the bobbins are carried IS

Dow




Parks-Cramer Company v. G. W. Thornton and Sons Ltd.(Patent, lnjringement Ch.D.)

121

[No.6]

secured by a tape drive from a rotated drum called the tin roller which runs longitudinally of the frame approximately midway its width. It will be appreciated thatthese spinning frames, which are of the order of 5 ft. 6 ins. and upwards high andof the order of 3 ft. 6ins. and below wide, are normally located in rows as shown

5 in the first photograph, leaving an aisle of 2 ft. 6 ins. or so wide at floor level, thewidth of the separation gradually increasing as the machines taper upwardly, eachmachine having some 150 to 200 spindles 011 each side. To maintain the frame inoperation, it is periodically necessary to attend to two requirements; first, to ensurea regular supply of roving, a reserve of which is provided by the spare bobbins

10 lying at the top of the creel. As and when a roving supply bobbin is approachingexhaustion, the operative breaks off the roving it is supplying to the drafting system,reaches for a spare bobbin with a skewer, substitutes the renewal bobbin for theempty one and, leading the new roving through the roving guides, pieces it in withthe broken-off roving which it is required to supplement. Most frames are fitted

15 with a suction device, referred to under a registered trade mark PNEUMAFIL, whichautomatically collects any broken thread at the point of emergence from the drafting system and withdraws it until the operative can deal with it. This is done bytaking a convenient length from the PNEUMAFIL device, leading it through itsappropriate thread wire and traveller and on to its winding bobbin. Both of these

20 operations, it will be noted, required the operativeto observe the working of theframe to detect deficiencies and also closely to approach the moving parts of themechanism when seeking to remedy them. Whether it arose from these considerations alone or, as is suggested hereafter, supplemented by another factor, thereappears to be no doubt that operatives, both in this country and the United States

25 of America, developed a strong proprietary right in the aisles wherein they worked,resenting any intrusion by persons or trucks whilst the machines were in operationand most strongly opposed the introduction therein of any mechanisms which wouldimpede free passage whilst spinning operations were in progress.

The nature of material undergoing conversion and the particular operations30 required to convert it introduced another factor, and it is to the improved solution

of the problems introduced thereby that the alleged inventions here in suit areapplicable. The initial roving, consisting as it does of a very light twisted agglomeration of fibres of varying but short length, is obviously prone to shed some ofthem if at all disturbed. The drawing off of the roving from the bobbin over the creel

35 guides is one such opportunity for disturbance. The drafting operation itself, involving as it necessarily does a deliberate separation of contiguous fibres, is another, andthe point of final emergence from the drafting rollers is found to be the place ofmaximum shedding. The frictional effect of the high rate of revolution of thetraveller and the windage it creates, even though the fibres are closely compacted

40 at that stage, is responsible for yet other disturbance, and all such disturbance ismanifested by the emission of fibres to which the name of " fly " is applied in thiscountry, whether it be airborne or, as eventually will happen, it forms surface accumulations wherever it chooses to settle, from which, however, it may again be madeairborne if air currents disturb it to cause a "boil-up," as it is called. The name

45 "lint" appears to be the transatlantic equivalent for" fly," and it should be understood that seed particles and dust and other matter ejected from the roving duringthe spinning operation are also included within the term. Substantially only 99 percent. or so of the total weight of the cotton submitted to spinning will be convertedinto yam, the remainder going off as fly. It has long been known that if any fly

50 should settle upon the material being processed, the quality of the product and therate of production would be adversely affected, and for many years a system ofperiodical cleaning has been practised. The photographs contained within a black

Dow



122



[1966]

folder which was put in at the hearing convey a general impression of the conditionswherein removal of the accumulations becomes necessary before spinning can becontinued without serious detriment to the quality of the product. The operative'sresponsibility was to clean off fly deposited on the creel with a hand brush; that, orrather as much as she could remove, deposited in the region of the drafting rollers 5by a tufted brush resembling a paint brush, and deposits on the lappets by sliding aflannel-covered wooden strip along the creel bottom board which is on the framejust above the roller beam level and behind the yarn being spun. She would additionally .use a duster wherever the removal of fly by its use was possible and desirable. In such manner, deposits of fly would be mainly transferred to the lower parts 10of the frame, such as the spindle rail and the tin roller, and to the floor. The lowerparts of the frame would be cleaned by a cleaning gang when the frames were notin operation, such as during lay-off at the week-end, whilst the floor would beperiodically swept during working hours by a person employed for the purpose. Savein compacted aggregations, fly is very responsive to air currents, with the conse- 15quence that its initial transfer to floor level did not deny its capacity to again becomeairborne if by reason of the passage of personnel and equipment or other cause asufficient atmospheric disturbance was created. The resulting phenomenon is aptlydescribed by the name " boil-up " applied to its occurrence. The possible deleteriouseffect upon the product of such a boil-up if the fly should reach the level of the 20operating parts of the frame may well have been an additional incentive to theoperatives in the development of the resentment against intrusion into the aisleswherein they worked, which I have already noted, but, whatever the causes, theyappear to have developed so strong a sense of proprietorship of these spaces duringworking hours that management had to accord with it in the interest of good labour 25relations. The requirement that the operative should attend to her cleaning dutiesnecessarily restricted the number of spindles and in consequence the number ofspinning frames, the running of which she could satisfactorily supervise, and herpersonal responsibility for the correct operation of the equipment and the qualityof its production prevented any delegation of the tasks, save for the floor sweeping. 30

Against this background of normal operation in a spinning mill in (say) about1920, there must be outlined the pressure for more efficient and therefore cheaperproduction which thereafter developed. Developments in the construction of thespinning frames tended to reduce the number of occasions upon which the intervention of the operative in its automatic production of yarn was necessary, thus opening 35the way to a higher allocation of spindles to each operative, whilst the accompanyingtendency of using coarse ravings in the creel, higher attenuation in the draftingsystem and increased revolution speed of the bobbin spindles considerably increasedthe production of fly, exacerbated the cleaning problem and tended to make evenmore burdensome the supervision of the same number of spindles. Conditions were 40not apparently dissimilar in the United States of America, and it was there thatthe use of mechanical contrivances to relieve the operative of some of these cleaningduties seems to have originated. The story of this development in the art can conveniently be taken from the year 1930, the year when the so-called Walker travellingcleaners began to be mounted above spinning frames in mills in the United States of 45America.

These devices made use of the commonly apprehended phenomenon that themaintenance of direction and persistence of velocity of an unconfined airstream inan ambient atmosphere is more effectively secured by blowing than by suction, foralthough the disclosure contained a reference to the use of vacuum-creating means 50for providing an upward suction in lieu of a downwardly directed blast and certainof the claims were wide enough to include this alternative, the preferred embodiment

Dow





123

[No.6]

and the form of the patented device which came into use in the United States ofAmerica was of the blowing type. The patentee provided an endless rail systemhung from the ceiling centrally located above the rows of spinning frames proposedto be dealt with, along which an air impeller could be caused to travel so as to

5 operate upon each frame in turn in one row and then upon each of the frames insuccessive rows to complete a circuit capable of repeated operation. In this way,each frame was exposed to the action of the air impeller at predetermined intervals.An electric motor mounted in the wheeled travelling carriage provided propulsionmeans for the carriage and additionally rotated a fan carried in a casing which was

10 so shaped and arranged as to discharge a stream of air through a nozzle extendingacross the full width of the frame, and comparatively narrow in its other dimension.As was to be expected, it was found in practice that the wider forms of creel boardconstituted a substantial barrier to the persistence of the blowing effect save at thetwo extreme ends of the nozzle, and it was not long before the advantage of modify-

15 ing the air delivery system was appreciated. Here again, a practical machine wasdesigned and installed on a large scale in mills in the United States of America andthe general construction is to be found described and illustrated in United Statesletters patent No. 2,047,558 (Hodge). The endless rail upon which the impeller wasto travel was no longer suspended from the ceiling, but mounted upon the top of

20 the frame itself. The air discharge arrangement was materially altered, first byclosing off the middle portion of the width-wise slit and concentrating the air blastat each side of the frame, and second by the provision of adjustable sleeves or cuffsthrough which the air blast could be directed not only downwardly but also inwardlyor outwardly as desired so as to blow not only on to and across the creel board but

25 also to be aimed towards the lower and outer portions of the frame. It wouldappear from the evidence that the whole of the expected air direction indicated byarrows in Figure 1 of the Hodge specification was not achieved in practice. Aphotograph (PC.1) shows a typical commercial unit and the cleaner, even whenapplied -to a higher frame than that shown in the photograph, was proved by Mr.

30 Battersby to have been effective only in cleaning the creel top, the creel itself withits bottom boards and the creel guide rods. (Apparatus of this type was importedinto and installed in mills in this country by the second plaintiffs in 1950, the metalnozzles being located above head height at not less than 6 feet from ground level.)

The practical employment of cleaning devices of these types in the United States35 of America was brought to the notice of the cotton industry in the United Kingdom

by the publication in 1944 of what has come to be known as the Platt Report. Inthe spring of that year, the then Minister of Production had caused a mission ofseven, headed by the Cotton Controller" Sir Frank Platt, to proceed to the UnitedStates of America to investigate and report upon the methods used in the cotton

40 industry in that country. The report itself noted the use of travelling overheadcleaners for the removal of accumulated fly which was claimed to have halved theamount of manual cleaning required, and stated that these had been supplementedin a number of installations by the employment of a flexible and portable blowerpipe by means of which the operative could, in lieu of using a hard brush, clean

45 off fly accumulations on the lower parts of the frames. In that part of the reportwherein current British and American practice were compared and contrasted, itwas noted that few, if any, overhead cleaners had been installed in this country.The reason for this somewhat imprecise manner of expression may have derivedfrom knowledge of some mechanisms in British mills, such as were referred to by

50 Mr. Charnley as in use prior to 1944, whereby upwardly directed air blasts avoidedfly accumulations on the ceiling, but were not otherwise effective for cleaningpurposes.

Dow



124


Parks-Cramer Company v. G. W. Thornton and Sons Ltd.(Patent, Injringement Ch.D.)

[1966]

The first-named plaintiffs, whose business in the United States of America wasconcerned with the manufacture, supply and installation of overhead travellingcleaners made under the Walker and Hodge patents, then began to consider entryupon the British "market. In 1950 some twelve such devices were imported, butthe limitations upon dollar spending induced a determination to institute manu- 5facture within Great Britain, and this was subsequently undertaken in 1951 throughthe second-named plaintiffs by an arrangement made between the first-namedplaintiffs and Textile Machinery Makers Limited. 'The next development was theintroduction into this country of an improved mechanisms illustrated in photograph PC.3, of which over 300 units servicing about three-quarters of a million 10spindles were eventually installed. Such mechanism derived from the allegedinvention of the first of the two letters patent in suit, namely, No. 672,852. Referenceto the specification shows that the mechanism it describes purports to be animprovement upon cleaners of the Hodge type. It notes that the termination ofthe air nozzles at a height above the head of the operative limits the effect of the 15air blast to the removal of fly accumulations from those parts of the frame whichare in the direct path of the air current, with the consequence that the undersideof the creel board, the spools supplying roving to the draw rollers and thetraveIling rovings thernselYes, and by inference parts of the mechanism still furtherremoved from the nozzles, are substantially unaffected. The specification 20accordingly proposes the provision of what are called "cuff extensions of highlyflexible material" to the discharge nozzles through which the air blast may bedirected transversely of the frame. It is specifically stated that the air so aimedshould reach the creel boards and the spools mounted thereon. It is recognisedthat these extensions will be of such length as to be capable of impinging against 25the operative, thus constituting a definite invasion of hitherto free space withinwhich passage for attention to the spinning operations was essential. The describedand illustrated preferred embodiment follows generally the Hodge arrangementwith a single fan enclosed in a casing which divides the air flow initially into twostreams, one for each side of the machine frame. Each of the two outlets is further 30sub-divided to provide a leading and a trailing nozzle, one of which made of metalif terminating above the height of the operative or otherwise of flexible material,directs air downwardly and therefore towards the drafting roller assembly, whilstthe other of highly flexible material is provided with a tapering and inwardlycurved end portion whereby the air issuing from it is directed upon the underside 35of the creel board. The cuff length is expressed to be: such as to direct thetransverse air current closely beneath the creel board when the device is employedon a spinning frame.

Devices of the kind described-v-as also the Walker and Hodge mechanismssecure only the dispersal of fly accumulations and make no provision for their 40collection. The generally downward direction of the air blasts will tend to assistin deposition of material upon the floor, from which the common practice ofremoval by brushing will secure the ultimate collection of much of it. Immediatelypreceding the claims, the specification contains a passage wherein the employmentof suctlion aPdPlianfces ~or collectio

fnhof . mate~ial blown away by the device is 45

express y state as orrmng no part 0 t e invention.Then follow five claiming clauses. [His Lordship read claims 1-5.]

From the language of the main claim, the features which are stated to characterisethe alleged invention are seen to be applied to a travelling cleaner of a definedtype, that is to say, one which comprises an overhead track upon which a motor- 50driven carriage may travel, the motor driving also a fan rotatable within its casing,

Dow




Parks-Cramer Company v. G. W. Thornton and Sons Ltd.(Patent, Injringement Ch.D.)

125

[No.6]

from which casing the blown air emerges through oppositely positioned anddownwardly directed outlets. It was suggested in argument that the expression"oppositely positioned " was susceptible of a variety of meanings, of which "ateach side of the machine frame" or " opposite to the inlet" or " on any opposite

5 faces of the fan casing" may be taken to be instances. Even if this argument weretextually tenable, it would only imply that a number of differently constructedmechanisms known at the date of application for the letters patent in suit werecapable of improvement by the addition of the inventor's novel features, and thereis no evidence to show that this would not be the case. But in reality a fair

J0 interpretation of this reference to type, bearing in mind the employment of asingle fan for operation upon double-sided textile machines, would most certainlyindicate to the reader the established type of mechanism wherein oppositelypositioned outlets serviced from one fan' were disposed one at each side of themachine frame and he would understand that it was in mechanisms of that character

15 that the inventor was proposing to incorporate his improvements.

These improvements to such outlet conduits comprise: - (a) providing each witha rigid section not reaching below head height, (b) to some of which a flexiblecuff extension is applied, (c) such cuff being directed both downwardly andinwardly, (d) to direct air laterally against the machine, (e) the flexibility of the

20 cuff being such as to cause yielding on impact.

The only word requiring technical interpretation is "cuff," for "flexible" and" flexibility" are plainly used in a colloquial sense, not as meaning possessingeven a minimal capacity for flexure, but as readily deformable on the applicationof manual pressure. The specification itself equates "cuff" with "sleeve"; and

25 Mr. Davis, although admittedly speaking only from experience in the UnitedStates of America, said that such corespondence was both his own understandingas well as that of his colleagues. Clearly the word used in the specification isintended to designate the whole of the delivery conduit between the rigid sectionand the outlet, only the end of which in the preferred embodiment is folded

30 back to form what is colloquial English would be a cuff. Treating the specification as its own dictionary, the word "cuff" must be construed to mean anattachment to the rigid outlet of such a length as to secure the intended directionof the air blast from its open termination; and, so read, the claim presents nodifficulty of interpretation.

35 Validity was attacked on the ground of lack of novelty, lack of inventive merit,inutility and ambiguity. The consideration already given to the interpretationof the specification and claims disposes of the allegation of ambiguity, and theevidence of Mr. Heywood and Mr. Charnley amply proved the utility of thepatented devices. The. point attempted to be made in cross-examination of Mr.

40 Battersby as destroying utility was based upon an a.ssumption as to the relativeeffectiveness of the mechanisms he was comparing made by him for the convenience of calculation, and in no way weakens the affirmative testimony of theother witnesses. Nor did the citation of two United Kingdom and three foreignprior published specifications deny novelty to the specification in suit, and the

45 real attack was concentrated on the alleged lack of subject matter.

Consideration of the subject matter issue became somewhat confused by reasonof a difference of view between the parties as to the scope of the claims of thepatent. As already noted, the particular cuff extensions described and illustratedas proposed attachments to the rigid fan outlets necessarily obtruded into the

Dow



126



[1966]

operative's working space, but their effectiveness for cleaning, coupled with theiryieldability on impact, proved in practice adequate to overcome objection to theinnovation. Once they were adopted, an extension of their operation to the draftingroller mechanisms, the lappets and the winding gear, all of which areas were: wellknown as likely fly-producing sources, was an obvious development if this could 5be done without introducing a genuine, as opposed to a supposed, hazard to theworkers. The travelling flexible sleeve, in showing its cleaning effectiveness, hadat the same time laid the bogy of intrusion, and the burden of hand operationswhich its employment had lifted from the spinner was seen to be cheaply securedat the price of an occasional brush on the shoulder. The consequence was that, 10starting in 1955, longer sleeves, with spaced outlets suitably located in relation toall fly-producing areas, at first only down to the lappets and later to lower partsof the frame, were gradually introduced. That this flowed from experience gainedfrom the installation of mechanism such as is described and illustrated in thepreferred embodiment is plain enough, whilst it seems equally plain that the 15patentees would not have expressed the principal object of their invention insuch limited terms if they had contemplated a length of their cuff extensions belowroving spool height. If it were necessary to decide the matter, the whole tenorof the specification would, on a strict interpretation, lead to a reading of themonopoly claims such that each flexible sleeve would have only one delivery 20outlet, thus calling for a plurality of sleeves, and not a plurality of openings inone sleeve if several areas were to be affected. But, in truth, the inventive conceptupon which the claim to subject matter can be based resides in the appreciationthat the advantage gained by fly dispersal will overcome (when obtained by thetravel of a yieldable conduit) the long-standing objection of the workers to the 25introduction of obstructions to the working space they expect to occupy; and,so regarded, the actual sleeve length employed is seen to be of no real moment.Naturally enough, a policy of small beginnings proved tactically sound in encouraging the acceptance of a change of working conditions, as was agreed byMr. Taylor, and the credit due to the patentees for the innovation cannot fairly 30be lessened by the subsequent appreciation of still further benefits accruing fromnon-inventive developments of their original conception.

The cited specifications add nothing relevant to the prior art already considered.Letters patent No. 315,380 (Fahrni) relates to a street dust remover whereinbrushes whirl up surface dust which is intended to be drawn in by a series of 35closely aligned suction tubes. Letters patent No. 486,505 (Johnston Brothers andHobbs) discloses an apparatus for collecting leaves and like litter of a somewhatsimilar type wherein material freed by brushing is sucked into conduits which maybe of a flexible construction and delivered into a receiving trailer. U.S. patentNo. 2,047,558 (Hodge) is directly relevant, as has already been stated. U.S. patent 40No. 1,586,706 (Russell) describes and claims a nozzle connection for applicationto suction hose constructed from fabric and metal. Norwegian patent No. 25,205(Kafoed) discloses another street dust remover, wherein a blower directs thedust-laden air beneath a water spray to compact it and provision for collectionof the spoil in a container from which it may readily be removed is included. 45Of these publications, only U.S. No. 2,047,558 (Hodge) warrants consideration andthis, whilst proposing adjustable sleeves or cuffs for attachment to the fan casingoutlets so as to direct an issuing air stream upon accumulations of fly, specificallyrelates it to a need for such adjustment by reason of variation in creel boardwidths and both describes and illustrates a construction wherein the issuance of 50air is from above creel board height. It thus conforms with, and adopts its

Dow





127

[No.6]

construction to the accepted practice of avoiding invasion of the aisle space belowhead level, and gives no hint that a departure from it without the introductionof a risk of injury would be either practicable or beneficial. Indeed, it asserts(page 2, lines 3 to 8) that the parts of the frame below head level which

5 are there specified will receive a downwardly directed air blast from the elevatednozzles described and illustrated, thus implying (he absence of any reason forcarrying any nozzle extension still lower.

The submission that the plaintiffs have done no more than apply to a knownair delivery device an old and well-known property of flexible hoses for the

10 conveyance of fluids to appropriate destinations would be applicable if all thatneed be considered were the means by which the underlying idea was madeeffective. So to regard the contribution made to the art by the patentees' disclosureis to rob it of its real significance and dismiss from consideration the ingeniousconception that an obstruction, travelling at the rate of 100 feet a minute, could

15 be introduced into the operative's aisle space and be welcomed not only for thegreat improvement of the quality, costing and rate of production of yarn whichit provided, but also for its service in reducing the operative's burden in maintaining efficient running. It is in consequence impossible, in my judgment, to holdthat the plaintiffs' innovation required the exercise of no inventive faculty for

20 its devising, and the attack upon the validity of letters patent No. 672,852 mustbe rejected.

The travelling cleaners admittedly sold and supplied by the defendants areshown in an illustrated form in the two issues of T he Textile Weekly which arespecified in the particulars of breaches, and the constituent parts of each such

25 device and the manner of its mounting upon rows of aligned spinning framesappear from the agreed figures Nos. 1 to 6 inclusive. An exhibit (FR.l) containsexamples of the various attachments through which air currents from the fansare passed, from which their degrees of rigidity and flexibility can be ascertained.

Six photographs of an acutal installation are useful in supplementing the infor-30 mation given by the figures and the exhibit FH.l. From Figure 6 it will be

apparent that three installations serve the eight rows in which the sixteen spinningframes are arranged, one installation serving two rows and each of the othersserving three. The mechanism is so devised as to permit the cleaner starting froma location at the end of one row, to traverse the row, turn through 180 degrees

35 and traverse the next row in the opposite direction (and reversing direction againalong a third row when so intended). the starting and terminal positions beingknown as stops. These stops are provided with fly collection bins into which thematerial collected during the traverse is automatically transferred, and other meanssecure reverse travel of the cleaner when empty back to the stop from which it

40 initially started. Figure 1 is an end view of the device looking along the line ofthe spinning machine and Figure 2 a view at right-angles thereto; that is, lookingtransversely of the spinning machine. It will be seen in Figure 2 that a foot or soabove the creel top the bearing rail 11 upon which the device is to travel is located.The device itself can be regarded as the combination of two mirror image parts

45 symmetrically placed about the mid line of the frame and thus adapted to secureequivalent operation upon the machine's two working faces. Each such mirrorpart contains a motor which drives the fans therein, one of which is the blowingfan and the other a suction fan. For the purposes of considering the first letterspatent in suit, the suction fan and its attachment may be wholly disregarded. The

50 blowing fan is contained within a casing, diagrammatically shown in Figure 5,

Dow



128



[1966]

in which four exit openings numbered 15, 16, 17 and 18 allow escape of air.Opening 15 is provided with a flexible nozzle 19 directed substantially verticallyupwards and intended for ceiling cleaning. Opening 16 leads into a metal extensiontube 20, to the other end of which a flexible nozzle 21 is attached, and this ismainly employed for cleaning the rail track. Opening 17 has attached to it a 5flexible duct terminating in a flexible nozzle, the length of the duct reaching todrafting system level. To opening 18 is fitted a two-membered delivery duct, theorifice portion of which is flexible and from which air is directed to the creel area.

A number of points were asserted in argument to justify the exclusion of thedefendants' apparatus from the ambit of claim 1, the only claim of which infringe- 10ment is now alleged. Those which depend upon the acceptance of a strictinterpretation of the words "cuff extension" and "highly flexible" now nolonger arise. The really substantial point made is t.hat the description specificallyrelates the patentees' invention to the modification of a machine of an existingtype and the claims include an express limitation to the type,; that is, a travelling 15cleaner . . . provided with a fan enclosed in a fan casing which has an inlet andoppositely positioned downwardly directed outlet conduits. The defendants'mechanism is most certainly not of this type, for they employ-s-disregarding thesuction side of the machine, which has no relevance to this point--two fans eachin its own casing, which casings are oppositely positioned to provide the symmetrical 20operation which it was the purpose of the patentees' oppositely positioned conduitsto safeguard. The usual cases were relied upon in argument to support theconflicting contentions of the parties on this point, the defendants praying in aidthe principle of construction of the ambit of the monopoly so clearly stated byLord Russell in E.M.I. v. Lissen (1939) 56 R.P.C. 23 at 41, (H.L.) and the plaintiffs 25adopting the rule expressed by Parker, J. in Marconi v. British Radio (1911) 28R.P.C. 181, that the consequences of infringement cannot be escaped by theintroduction of immaterial variations of the patented device. Properly regarded,these statements are in no sense in conflict, for the former applies only toconstruction of language, which requires no estimation of the relative significance 30of the individual features of the invention, but groups them together in order thatthe invention may be apprehended as a totality. When that has been done, andthe issue of infringement falls to be decided, the court has to examine that totalityto mark the essential and unessential features (if any) whereby to test whether ornot the defendants have appropriated, as a matter of substance, the invention of 35the plaintiffs. The omission of or substitution for an unessential feature will notsuffice to avoid infringement, In actual practice, of course, the estimation ofessentiality may prove stubborn of resolution, but where necessary the task mustbe essayed. In the present instance, the invention has been both described andclaimed in the specification as the improvement of a known type of travelling 40cleaner, certain features of which have been selected for particular reference toprovide for its precise identification. To hold that the restriction to such type,and a fortiori to these selected features, was non-essential would leave in dubiothe locations at' which the patentees' novel cuff extensions were proposed to beattached. As claimed, they are to be applied to "each conduit" and the only 45identification of such is to be found in the description "a fan enclosed in a fancasing which has an inlet and oppositely positioned downwardly directed outletconduits." The invention resides, not in the conception of flexible cuff extensionsas such, but in their incorporation at particular locations into a defined type ofmachine whereby the promised advantages may be secured. Moreover, it is by 50no means certain that insistence upon one fan to provide the air blast to both

Dow




Parks-Cramer Company v. G. W. Thornton and Sons Ltd.(Patent, lniringement C'h.D.)

129

[No.6]

sides of the frame was not supposed by the inventor to be a valuable feature ofhis mechanism. In theory it would ensure equivalence of operation which evenminor differences between two fans could deny. In their own advertising literatureadvantages are claimed for the single motor, single fan construction which were

5 not denied in evidence. Having regard to all these circumstances, it is not possible,in my judgment, to hold that the plaintiffs have proved infringement of this1etters patent.

'The second letters patent in suit, No. 852,765, is concerned with the removaland collection of fly accumulations from the floor of textile mills and from

10 machine surfaces therein. It was granted pursuant to a convention applicationbased upon two applications made in the United States of America in Augustand September of 1958. The evidence of Mr. Flynn, a technical assistant in theemploy of the firm of patent agents through whom the British application wasmade, establishes that two specifications with claims, one for apparatus and one

15 for method, were originally drafted in the United States of America and that hiscontribution was concerned only with such formal revision as was' required tocombine the two American drafts and bring them into consonance with Britishpractice. He acknowledges that he saw no reason nor made any attempt tomodify the scope of the claims transmitted from America. That this was in

20 accordance with his instructions was confirmed by Mr. Bell, the United Statespatent attorney who was responsible for drafting the United States documents.This gentleman was plainly a truthful and responsible witness and he assertedthat he intended his draft claims to be limited to automatic operation and nevercontemplated a construction of their language which would include manual

25 operation, The patentees recognised that, in its granted form, the main claims ofletters patent No. 852,765 were susceptible of a construction which, both by reasonof an extension beyond the inventive concept described in the specification andalso by the inclusion of manual operation of commonplace vacuum cleaning devices,could seriously imperil validity. They accordingly moved in the action for leave

30 to amend in the form shown, which was subsequently modified in relation to claim2. A statement of the reasons for seeking amendment and a statement in answerwere duly filed, and the application was heard with the action. Apart from thecontention that no amendment could avoid a finding of invalidity, there was butone submission of any substance made against the granting of leave. The argument

3S proceeded as follows: The promise of the specification is that not only the floorbut also the machine surfaces can be kept free of fly by the proposed suctiondevice. Cleaning of the machine surfaces is described in the specification (seepage 107, lines 34 to 37) as requiring manual operation of the flexible suctionduct. The introduction by amendment into claim 1 of the requirement of automatic

40 movement for the suction duct will exclude any manual operation of it and inconsequence deny the fulfilment of the avowed object and thus provide groundfor a finding of inutility. The argument is ingenious but fallacious, for claim 1 isrestricted to the method of floor cleaning, for which purpose no manual operationis ever called for. When the appartus claims are examined, it is plain that provision

45 is made for the machine surface cleaning additions to be incorporated. There isin consequence no valid objection to the admissibility of the amendments proposed,and in the further consideration of the remaining issues between the parties thespecification notionally amended in the manner sought will provide the basis.

The invention is concerned with the collection and removal of fly and dust from50 floors and machine surfaces, particularly in textile mills. The specification begins

Dow



130



[1966]

by referring to the production of fly as an incident in textile fibre processing andpoints out that the known use of blower mechanisms for cleaning machine partsincreases the amount of floor accumulation calling for attention. It thus acknowledges the existence of alternative means for serving the purpose and representsthat none have proved to be practicable. It proceeds to assert novelty in the idea ~

of providing one or more travelling units, each of which draws fly from the airinto a container as it travels, which material it delivers periodically into a collectionbin. The expressed object of the invention is to provide a new and effectivemethod of and apparatus for collecting fly accumulation particularly from machinesurfaces, the floor under the machines and the aisles between adjacent machines. 10Embodiments of the invention are then described and illustrated (see in particularFigures 3 and 10) with such clarity that a precis of the six pages of descriptionwould be supererogatory, the specification ending with 26 claims, of which 19are directed to apparatus and the remainder to the methods of operation. Thetwo broadcast claims read as follows: 15

[His Lordship then read claims 1 and 8 as proposed to be amended (supra p. I IO).].

Both these claims are alleged to be infringed as well as claims 14 to 18 inclusiveand 22. The monopoly conferred by these claims can be simply expressed againstthe background of common knowledge. It extends to the adaptation of knowntravelling cleaner devices by the addition to or substitution for the blowing equip- 20ment carried on the moving carriage of known vacuum cleaning mechanism, theflexible suction nozzle of which is of the appropriate length to reach the surface tobe cleaned and of the appropriate size to suck up the floor accumulations and inrespect of which a location within the aisle would be known to be free fromobjection. 25

Validity was attacked on a number of grounds-lack of novelty, absence ofsubject matter, inutility, ambiguity and that the method claims did not relate to aninvention properly so called. As the defendants' case was developed at the hearing,absence of subject matter became the substantive ground of objection and referencewas made not only to a number of prior letters patent, other forms of patent protec- 30tion and certain other publications as indicative of the published prior art, but alsoto the erection and installation in the United Kingdom of a Scharer pirn windingmachine. United Kingdom letters patent Nos. 315,380 (Fahrni) and 486,505 Johnstonand Hobbs) and Norwegian patent No. 25,205 (Kafoed) have already been referredto in connection with the other letters patent in suit in this action. They relate to 35street cleaning devices wherein suction or blowing is employed to facilitate collection.So far as concerns suction, the indoor use of vacuum cleaners was so much a partof the common general knowledge at the priority date of this letters patent thatdependence upon specific uses is not required; and, for blowing, the plaintiffs'own specification No. 672,852, directed as it is to the specific problem of fly 40accumulation in spinning mills, is far closer than Kafoed. Letters patent No.574,490 relates to improvements in conveyors for handling granular material andintroduces nothing of value to the case. U.S. No. 1,781,142 (Walker) is directedto the cleaning of spinning frames and describes a device of the overhead travellingcleaner type whereby a current of air may be directed downwardly from a nozzle 45extending width-wise and located above the top of the frame. As an alternative,operation by suction is suggested as possibly desirable in some instances, but nomodification in the location of the air nozzle is proposed, with the consequencethat no suction current closely adjacent the floor could be provided. U.S. No.

Dow





131

[No.6]

1,892,751 (Smith) is also directed to the cleaning of spinning frames and describesan overhead traveller cleaner of much the same type. Its distinctiveness residesin the proposal that the fan should serve both a suction and a blowing nozzlespaced apart, with the suction nozzle leading, each of which will exercise its

5 effect in succession from a location above the top of the frame. The specificationclearly contemplates a continuance of production of floor accumulations. Germanspecification No. 912,258 (Schweiter) is particularly concerned with mechanism forautomatically energising and de-energising an electrical suction cleaning device, butits significance resides in the reference to the cleaning devices to which such

10 mechanism may be applied. An overhead trackway is positioned above a spoolwinding machine and upon it a vacuum exhauster is mounted for travel. Thesuction hose is permitted to hang freely down and is thus made available formanual guidance by the operative to the surface proposed to be cleaned. Both fromthe illustrations and letterpress it seems clear that only machine cleaning was

15 contemplated. Letters patent No. 694,794 (Scharer) describes and claims a devicefor the automatic collection and removal of fly generated in thread windingmachines, the essential features of which include a travelling carriage reciprocablelongtitudinally of the spinning or like frame which carries a fan or like mechanismfrom which air may be forced through both a blower and a suction nozzle so as

20 to collect fly before it can fall to the ground. This device was established by theevidence to be a practicable machine, one installation of which was pleaded inparagraph 5(b) of the particulars. Two illustrated leaflets also therein pleaded areuseful as a supplement to the figures in the cited specification. The bare conceptionof utilising both blowing nozzles and suction nozzles for the removal of fly from

25 textile machines was in consequence lacking in novelty, and it would seem at firstsight that the common use of vacuum cleaning devices for the collection of dustand the like from floors would have inspired the introduction of the simplemodifications required for these prior proposals so as to extend their field ofoperation to the floors upon which the machines were mounted. The fly accumu-

30 lations there were plainly to be observed, and their removal by brushing a regularpractice. There is no apparent intractability in the material such as would makevacuum removal an unlikely method for adoption, and commercial vacuumcleaning devices were available in the market and had been proposed for use inspinning mills (see U.S. No. 1,245,629), although the evidence failed to establish

35 any actual use of such devices for floor cleaning in textile mills prior to the disclosureof the invention the subject of the letters patent in suit. So it comes about that thedefendants are able to contend that all that was required was (a) the additionof a common type of flexible hose to the suction nozzle in the Smith construction(U.S. No. 1,892,751) of a length such as to reach the floor, or (b) an extension in

40 length of the suction hose in Schweiter (German specification No. 912,258) and,for automatic travel, the incorporation of a motorised carriage of known type.All this is true enough if, but only if, the collection of fly had been seen to be aunified problem. So long as the emphasis was upon the removal from particularframe parts (where its presence would be harmful) to the floor (where it was

45 thought to do little, if any, harm) periodical floor cleaning was, in a very realsense, as separate an operation from fly dispersal as, for example, the supply offresh roving bobbins for the creel from which the fly was generated. What stillremained to be appreciated was the desirability of collecting and removing flyas soon as practicable after its production, by blowing it from frame parts which

50 were difficult of ready access to positions from which substantially continuousremoval could be secured. This step had, in relation to one type of textile machines,been taken by Scharer, whose pirn winder, as described in letters patent No.

Dow



132



[1966]

694,794, had become a known and used mechanism in the textile industry of thiscountry five years before the priority date of the letters patent in suit, and whichprovided means whereby the production, collection and transfer of fly wereintegrated. The method adopted in this machine required the introduction of atray as a flat collecting surface. That this same idea could conceivably be applied 5to spinning frames, using the mill floor as the collecting surface, was appreciatedplainly enough, although the full benefit to be obtained thereby may not havebeen estimated, because a number of attempts were made to devise mechanismwhereby a satisfactory result could be procured. The plaintiffs themselves spentsome years prior to 1957 in constructing and developing a floor cleaning attachment 10to their travelling overhead frame cleaner, a general idea of which can be gatheredfrom the May 1957 issue of The Textile World at page 73. A flexible trunkdelivered a directed air blast at floor level, and the idea was to blow floor accumulations towards a series of openings in the floor which communicated with asuction duct so as to cause the fly to be drawn in and be continuously withdrawn 15therefrom by a fan. Although about 100 installations were effected, the apparatuswas not commercially successful and had to be abandoned. A similar attempt wasmade by another United States corporation in exploiting the apparatus describedand illustrated in U.S. No. 2,758,041 (Denning) wherein travelling fans mountedbeneath the spinning frames were arranged to reciprocate in timed relationship 20so as to blow fly accumulations on the floor to a single point whereat a suctiondevice could deliver them to a stationary collecting bin. Despite years of concentration upon the mechanism, no commercially satisfactory result was obtained. Yetanother attempt was made in relation to the device shown in U.S. No. 2,844,495(Long) between the years 1952 and 1958. The general idea was to provide, in 25addition to blowing devices within the spinning frame of the usual kind, sourcesof compressed air directed outwardly from beneath each frame at or about floorlevel operating in succession so as to blow accumulations right across the millfloor.

The second defendants also appear to have applied themselves to the construction 30of mechanism to serve the same purpose, and German specifications Nos. 1,053,366and 1,101,241 relate to two of their attempts. The former is primarily concernedwith a suction cleaning device mounted so as to reciprocate along one side of aspinning frame in a manner which would so seriously constrict the operative'sworking space as to make it unlikely of ready acceptance by the industry. The 35second is in effect a development of the Smith construction (U.S. No. 1,892,751)by the addition of varying lengths of flexible piping to the blowing and suctionnozzles so as to locate their outlets in the desired positions. The material significance of these disclosures resides in the means they disclose for applying suctionat or about floor level, the tube 29 in No. 1,053,366 and the contemplated extension 40of nozzle 8 to floor level as described in No. 1,101,241. These specifications aredated respectively December 1957 and November 1957; that is, several monthsbefore the priority date of the letters patent in suit. The fact that these floor suctionnozzles are described in association with other mechanism operating upon themachine frames does not impair their effect as an indication that the use of a 45suction sleeve for the removal of fly from floor surfaces occurred independentlyto workers in the field other than the plaintiffs. True it is that such workers wereof inventive capacity, but the complete absence of any special emphasis in eitherspecification upon the floor suction nozzle (it is an optional inclusion in the firstand a possible inclusion in the second) may not unfairly be construed in inconsistent 50with any claim to inventiveness for such feature alone. As it turned out, the

Dow




Parks-Cramer Company v. G. W. Thornton and Sons Ltd.(Patent, Infringement eh.D.)

133

[No.6]

continuous automatic collection of fly from the floor by means of a suction nozzlecarried with it very considerable commercial benefits, for not only did it secure a newstandard of cleanliness in working conditions and encourage a sense of fastidiousness in the operatives, but as the investigations carried out by Mr. Battersby

5 demonstrated, it enabled a substantial increase in production at reduced labourcost to be secured. The result was, however, inevitable once the practice wassuccessfully put into operation, and the mere fact that the pursuit of moreeffective automatic cleaning carried in its wake unanticipated advantages (for thespecification in suit only refers to the elimination of manual labour) would not

10 create (though it might support) inventive merit for the idea of doing it by floorsuction. If the main claim as amended is to be held to be valid, it necessarilymeans that invention was required to appreciate that mounting a vacuum cleanerupon the travelling carriage of the usual frame cleaning mechanism and allowingits suction nozzle to reach to the floor would enable the floor to be kept clean.

15 On the one hand, it may be said that the plaintiffs' pre-occupation for years inattempts to make a success of the device shown in The Textile World advertisementis the best possible indication that the trifling modifications called for, which wouldconvert it to the patented method (that is to say, suction for blowing and a fishtail end in place of the curved outlet), could not have been plain to see. On the

20 other hand, it can be asserted without real fear of contradiction that, asked topropose a means of keeping the floor of an alley-way clean, the passage of avacuum cleaner nozzle over it would occur to any competent housewife. Even ifthe fullest weight be given to the mental paralysis induced by a fixed idea, it wouldseem that some vital factor must have been omitted in the formulation of this

25 dichotomy.

On further consideration, this is seen to reside in the omission from the amendedfirst claim of a differentiating feature for the real invention which had been made,assuming this can be taken as being directed not merely to the removal of fly fromthe aisle, that is to say, the area over which a depending suction nozzle could

30 obviously be traversed, but also to some cleaning of the areas under the framesto which no such ready access was possible. As is noted in the specification,(supra page 107, line 45 to page 108, line 8), the addition of an oscillatory transversemovement to the suction nozzle in its longitudinal passage through the aisle notonly provides for coverage of the full aisle width on repeated journeys but enables

35 fly to be drawn from beyond the aisle limits when a side sway of sufficientamplitude applied to the flexible nozzle brought it right up to the frame. Withoutthe introduction of this feature, the expression of the alleged invention in the formof an automatic and repeated traverse of a vacuum nozzle longitudinally of theaisles merely states a common-place expedient which could well have been rejected

40 in practice because it would be thought inadequate to remove the entire need formanual floor brushing. By its introduction in a form which would exclude theminor deviations from previse longitudinal travel such as would accompany thenormal operation of a suspended suction nozzle, the practical benefits of substantially complete fly removal from the entire floor area can rightly be assigned

45 to the invention and constitute it a valuable contribution to the art. The possibilityof a re-statement of the monopoly in such a manner is provided by the inclusionin the specification of the present claim 2, wherein this transverse oscillatorymovement is introduced. Both in its original and amended form this claim, byreason of its extension to manual operation such as is contemplated in the

50 specification (page 107, line 37) includes a non-inventive method of operation and it may be that the formulation of a satisfactory method claim by admis-

Dow



134



[1966]

sible amendment presents very formidable difficulties. But the apparatus claimsought to be susceptible of the inclusion of this additional degree of movementfor the flexible duct. Without such inclusion, amended claim 8 for the likereasoning as already directed to claim 1 includes non-inventive mechanism and inconsequence is invalid. In these circumstances, the motion for leave to amend the 5specification in suit in the respects as at present asked must be denied, so that novalid claim has been established in respect of which the issue of infringement callsfor decision.

Having listened to the evidence and argument, there are two matters of factupon which I have reached definite conclusions and it might be of use to the 10parties for me to deal with them. The first, and the more important, concernsthe capacity for transverse oscillatory travel of the suction duct in the allegedinfringement. Mr. Heywood in examination in chief and twice in cross-examinationgave his recollection of the amount of sway he had been able to observe whenexamining the alleged infringing device in operation. Its initial generation is to be ]5attributed to the centrifugal force developed as the travelling carriage from whichthe duct is suspended moves round at the frame ends through an angle of 180degrees. Mr. Heywood's recollection was that for a distance of 15 to 18 feet orso after turning the corner, the duct would oscillate with an amplitude up to some5 to 6 inches. This has to be considered against a total length of 120 feet or so 20for the run until the next corner has to be turned. The reliability of these estimationswas specifically challenged and Mr. Taylor for the defendants gave evidence ofthree separate examinations of the defendants' machine at work, and also of theplaintiffs' machine. His estimate was that the sway with the defendants' duct wasdamped out within 6 to 7 feet of turning the corner to an amplitude of approximately 251 inch only. No direct challenge was made to these figures in cross-examination,possibly because Mr. Harrap, the managing director of the second plaintiffs, hadstated in evidence that he thought sway to be of little significance. Had it beennecessary to decide the point, I should have accepted Mr. Taylor's figures as themore reliable. The second point would have been of significance if amended 30claim 15 had been valid, for infringement of that claim was alleged. The defendants'apparatus does not, in my understanding of it, incorporate a pair of ducts mountedastraddle the spinning frame and I should have decided against infringement forthat reason.

The order of the court, so far as material was in the following terms: -- 35

THIS COURT DOTH ORDER that this Action do stand dismissed out of thisCourt

AND THIS COURT certifies that upon the trial of this Action the validity ofthe Plaintiffs' Letters Patent Numbered 672852 was contested and that the Re-amended Particulars of Breaches were proven 40

AND on the said Counterclaim IT IS ORDERED that in so far as it relatesto Letters Patent Numbered 672852 the said Counterclaim do stand dismissedout of this Court and that Letters Patent Numbered 852765 be revoked

AND THIS COURT DOTH NOT THINK FIT to make any Order on thesaid Motion ' 45

AND ·the Plaintiffs Parks-Cramer (Great Britain) Limited by their Counselundertaking that they will not apply to the Patent Office to amend the CompleteSpecification of the said Letters Patent numbered 852765 until after 6 weeks from

Dow





135

[No.6]

the date when this Order shall have been entered or until after judgment shall havebeen delivered upon any appeal from this Order

IT IS ORDERED that the operation of the foregoing Order so far as it directsthe revocation of Letters Patent Numbered 852765 be suspended (a) in any event

5 until after 6 weeks from the date when this Order shall have been entered and (b)if the Plaintiffs shall lodge notice of appeal from this Order and shall prosecutesuch appeal with diligence then until after judgment in the said appeal shall havebeen delivered

AND IT IS ORDERED that it be referred to the Taxing Master to tax the10 costs of the Defendants of this Action and Counterclaim and of the said Motion

AND the Taxing Master is to tax all such costs as if all Particulars of Objectionhad been certified as reasonable and proper

AND IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiffs do pay to the Defendants seveneighths of the said costs when so taxed as aforesaid

15 AND IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiffs are to be at liberty to appeal fromthis Order so far as it relates to the said Motion and that the time for servingNotice of said appeal be extended to 6 weeks from the date when this Order shallhave been entered.

J. A.

Dow



[No.6] Patent -Infringement - Cleaning devices for textile ...

Documents

Transcript of [No.6] Patent -Infringement - Cleaning devices for textile ...