(110 Fed. 765.)

BURNHAM et al. v. UNION MFG. CO. et al.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. July 2, 1901.)

No. 938.

PATENTS-VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT-CRANK HANGERS FOR BICYCLES. In the Burnham & Alsup patent, No. 550,587, for an improvement in crank hangers for bicycles, claims 1 and 2 cover only combinations of old devices, which perform no new functions, and accomplish no new results, and such claims are therefore void for lack of invention. Claim 4, however, the essential feature of which is the placing of the ballbearing cones in the hollow hubs in the same plane as the cranks, thus securing the greatest possible distance between the bearings without increasing the width of the tread, embodies a new and useful improvement, and discloses patentable invention. Such claim, however, held not infringed.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio.

Charles M. Peck, for appellants.

Almon Hall, for appellees.

Before LURTON, DAY, and SEVERENS, Circuit Judges.

DAY, Circuit Judge. This case involves a patent relating to an improvement in crank hangers in bicycles, and is covered by letters patent No. 550,587, issued to Franklin P. Burnham and Jefferson D. Alsup. The inventors state that the improvement has for its object to procure an improved crank hanger, which will allow the maximum distance between bearings with a minimum tread in any given machine. A description of the invention, reference being had to the accompanying drawings, is as follows:

"Fig. 1 is a longitudinal section of the hanger, showing the several parts in their relative positions. Fig. 2 is a cross section on line 2, 2, of Fig. 1. Fig. 3 is an end view of the crank hub. Like letters of reference refer to like parts throughout the several figures. The crank-shaft sleeve, A, to which the frame of the bicycle is connected, is constructed as in ordinary bicycles, and is provided at the ends with the inside cones, A1, A1. The cranks, B, B, are provided with the hollow hubs, B1, B1, which contain the outside cones, B2, B2, and which are preferably integral with said cranks. Connected with the crank hubs, B1, B1, and preferably integral therewith, are the inwardly projecting portions, B3, and B4, which are provided with the teeth C and D, adapted to interlock, and connect the two portions together. The balls, B5, B5, work between the cones, A1, and B2. A bolt or rod, E, passes through the hubs, B1, B1, and is held in place by the head, E1, and nut, E2. The bearings may be adjusted by means of the nut, E2. In order to strengthen the connection between the projecting portions, B3, B4, of the hubs, B1, B1, we use a sleeve, F, which surrounds said projecting portions, and which is provided with the keys, F1, F1, adapted to fit into keyways on said portions, B3, B4, By this construction the torsional strength of the crank connection is greatly increased. It is evident that the teeth, C and D, may be dispensed with when the sleeve, F, is used, and that, when said teeth are used, the sleeve may be omitted; but we prefer to use both the teeth and the sleeve, as shown. The sprocket wheel, G, is fastened in any convenient manner to the flange, B6, on the hub, B1, as by means of the screws, G1, G1."

The patentees add:

"It will be seen we have here a simple, cheap, and light construction by which we secure the maximum width between the bearings, and hence a narrow-tread bicycle is secured without the disadvantages attending the narrowing of the tread in bicycles as ordinarily constructed, such as injury to the bearing and the like. We have described these several parts in detail, but it is evident that they may be varied somewhat in form and construction without departing from our invention, and we therefore do not wish to be limited to the exact construction shown."

The claims alleged to be infringed-Nos. 1, 2, and 4—are as follows:

"(1) The combination, in a bicycle hanger, of a crank shaft, a sleeve surrounding said crank shaft, and provided at each end with a ball-bearing cone; cranks provided with hollow hubs containing ball-bearing cones, and adapted to receive the ends of the crank-shaft sleeve; and a series of balls contained within said hollow crank hubs, and adapted to bear against said bearing cones, substantially as described.

"(2) A bicycle comprising cranks having hollow or recessed hubs integral therewith, and adapted to receive the bearing balls, each hub being provided with an inwardly projecting portion connected rigidly thereto, said inwardly projecting portions connected so as to rotate together, and a sleeve surrounding said inwardly projecting portions, and provided with a bearing surface for said bearing balls."

"(4) A bicycle comprising hollow or recessed hubs having cranks connected thereto, said hubs provided with ball-bearing cones in the same plane as the cranks, and being rigidly connected so as to rotate together; a nonrotatable sleeve associated with said hubs, and provided with ball-bearing cones opposed to the cones in the recessed hubs, and adapted to bear against said bearing cones."

A consideration of the testimony in this case, as well as the construction of the modern bicycle, indicates the desirability of maintaining as narrow a tread-being the distance between pedals-as is practicable. It is obvious that, the more narrow in construction the tread can be made, the better the operation of the machine, because the power can thus be more directly transmitted. It is also obvious that, the wider the distance between the bearings, the greater will be the resistance to strain, because of the increased rigidity of the mechanism. The problem to be solved in making a successful machine seems to be to combine narrowness of tread with the greatest practicable distance between the bearings. This the inventors of the mechanism disclosed by the letters patent in controversy claim to have accomplished in a manner superior to anything theretofore known, and in such wise as to make their invention a valuable and substantial advance in the solution of the problem. The learned counsel for the appellant states the gist of the complainants' patent to be "the placing of the ball bearing within the hubs of the crank hangers, whereby extreme narrowness of tread is secured, and in placing a driving sprocket wheel between the centers of the ball bearings, whereby torsional strain is prevented." The patent under consideration is a combination patent, and it is admitted that all its elements are old. As was said by the leading expert called for the appellant, "Crank bearings were old, and so are crank shafts and divided and coupled crank shafts, and so were cranks, and so were cranks with hollow hubs, and so

were ball bearings." What is claimed for complainants' patent is that it has produced for the first time a combination which, preserving narrowness of tread, has not correspondingly narrowed the distance between the ball bearings. Taking this statement as to the object and purpose of the complainants' patent, and we find that the central ideas therein of placing the ball bearings within the hubs of the crank arms and the driving sprocket wheel between the centers of the ball bearings are not original with the invention disclosed in the letters patent under consideration. In this connection we may remark that, while the location of the sprocket wheel within the planes of the ball bearings is not made a part of any of the claims of the complainants' patent, nevertheless, in the structure shown in the drawing and described in the specifications, having in view the purpose to be accomplished, it is necessary to locate the sprocket wheel within the planes of the bearings. Looking now to what has been accomplished before, we find in the patents set forth in defendants' answer that the hollowing of the hub to receive ball bearings had been frequently undertaken. Other inventors had in mind the advantage of placing the chain pull between the bearings. Grubb, whose patent was applied for before the patent in suit (letters patent No. 555,281, to William I. Grubb), speaks of bringing the strain upon the sprocket wheel between the plane of the bearing, and again says:

"By means of my construction I am enabled to spread the plane of the adjacent ball bearing out to or beyond the plane passing through the center of the sprocket teeth, and thus avoiding any overhanging strain."

Recessed ball bearings are shown as early as 1888 in the English patent to Boothroyd, No. 8,396 of 1888. In this patent there are shown two hubs having recessed ball bearings at the extremities of the shafts, with the sprocket wheel between the bearings. It is true, the Boothroyd patent is not for a crank hanger, and the attachment described was made to the rear sprocket wheel instead of the front sprocket wheel. But the desirability of keeping the bearings as far apart as possible by means of recessed hubs, inside. of which the bearings may operate, is fully indicated. In the patent to Alfred H. Bishop, No. 521,363, which antedates the complainants' invention, we have a crank with a hollow hub to receive the ball bearings, thereby obtaining increased distance between the bearings, without widening the tread. The accompanying drawing indicates the Bishop invention.

Of his invention Bishop says:

"My invention has for its object to securely connect the sprocket wheel with the crank or drive shaft in a simple and efficient manner, and so as to secure protection of the ball bearings from dust and dirt, and to bring the said bearing outwardly to or beyond the chain line, as will be hereinafter explained."

Bishop shows in his drawing, at the right hand thereof, a recessed hub, the recess not carried so far into the hub as is shown in complainant's structure, the latter carrying the recessed hub to a point within the vertical plane of the crank arm. Bishop shows, however, a recessed hub carrying the ball bearings further apart, and, if neces