File answer in Feeder Suit; Listings of factories operating patent machines, Homer Brooke, Conway, Croskey & Brookfield machines

[Trade Journal]

Publication: The Glassworker

Pittsburgh, PA, United States
vol. 39, no. 40, p. 1.17-18,20-21, col. 1-4


Miller Files His

Answer in Suit

Against U. S. Glass


William J. Miller and the Miller Glass Engineering Co., as intervening defendants in the suit of the Hartford-Fairmont Co. against the United States Glass Co. for alleged, infringement of patents, filed an answer to the plaintiff's bill in the United States district court in Pittsburgh on June 19. The intervening defendants assert that the glass feeding apparatus which has been complained of by the Hartford-Fairmont Co. is the invention of William J. Miller and was installed by him in the factory of the United States Glass Co. in Pittsburgh.

The answer of William J. Miller and the Miller Glass Engineering Co. further declare that the patents of H. K. Hitchcock and Karl F. Peiler,, which the United States Glass Co. is alleged to have infringed, were superseded by earlier inventions of a similar nature.

The suit of the Hartford-Fairmont Co. was filed late last March. It involves six patents. The plaintiff asked for an injunction against the United States Glass Co. as well an award of damages.

The answer of William J. Miller and the Miller Glass Engineering Co. follows in full:

Joint and Several Answers of William J. Miller and Miller Glass Manufacturing Engineering Co., Intervening Defendants.

Those intervening defendants, in answer to the bill of complaint, say:

1. That William J. Miller is a citizen of the United States of America, residing in Swissvale, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, in the Western District of Pennsylvania, where he is engaged in the business of designing and building machines, mechanisms and devices, for, and for use in connection with the manufacture of articles from glass.

2. That Miller Class Engineering company is a declaration of trust, constituted by said William J. Miller by his deed of trust executed March 21, 1919, recorded in the office of the Recorder of Deeds for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, in Deed Book Vol. 1949, page 617, wherein Victor J. Green, Fred Stewart and E. Erickson, all of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, were constituted trustees, said Erickson subsequently resigning as trustee, and said William J. Miller being duly elected trustee in his stead, said Green, Stewart, and Miller being at the present time all of the trustees of said Miller Glass Engineering company, said William J. Miller being the duly elected president, and said Victor J. Green the duly elected secretary and treasurer of said Miller Glass Engineering Co.

3. That prior to January 25, 1917, said William J. Miller did discover and invent a certain new and useful process and apparatus for controlling the flow of glass, the same being the new and greatly improved process and apparatus for feeding and controlling the feed of molten glass from a tank or other receptacle for the formation of gatherers for the supply of glass to glass forming machines, for which process and apparatus, said William J. Miller did on January 25, 1917, file an application for Letters Patent in the United States Patent Office, pursuant to which patent application, the Commissioner of patents did on March 26, 1918, issue to said William J. Miller, Letters Patent of the United States No. 1,260,428, a copy of which Letters Patent No. 1,260,428 is hereto attached and made a part hereof.

4. That said William J. Miller did by his written deed of assignmnt [sic] assignment, executed and delivered on March 20, 1919, and recorded in the United States Patent Office in Transfers of Patents, Liber C, 109, page 21, convey and assign said Letters Patent No. 1,260,428, and all his rights thereunder, to said Miller Glass Engineering company.

5. That said William J. Miller has also discovered and invented certain further patentable improvements, both in process and apparatus for feeding and controlling the flow of glass from a tank or other receptacle, for which further improvements he has filed his application for Letters Patent in the United States Patent Office and has been allowed claims by the Commissioner of Patents therefor.

6. That subsequent to the organization of said Miller Glass Engineering company, and prior to the zation [sic] organization of said Miller Glass Engineering company, under license agreement with United States Glass company, the defendant herein, installed in the factory of said United States Glass company, at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, certain glass feeding apparatus embodying the said Miller's patented process and apparatus and also said further improvements mentioned in Paragraph 5 of the answer; said apparatus having been manufactured for said Miller Glass Engineering company by said William J. Miller. That since said installation, said United States Glass company has used and still continues to use said Miller patented process and apparatus and said further patentable improvements thereon.

7. These defendants are informed and believe that the processes and apparatus for feeding glass in use in the factory of the United States Glass company, at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and complained of by the plaintiff herein, as infringing the several Letters Patent named in said bill of complaint, are in fact the processes and apparatus invented by said William J. Miller, and the same apparatus manufactured by said William J. Miller and installed by the Miller Glass Engineering company in the factory of the United States Glass company, which said processes and apparatus are used by the United States Glass company under license agreement with said Miller Glass Engineering company.

8. Said defendants, William J. Miller and Miller Glass Engineering company, are not advised save by all the bill of complaint as to the allegations set forth in Paragraph ''1" of said bill, and therefore deny the same and call upon plaintiff to make proof thereof.

9. These defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph "2" of the bill of complaint, except they admit the issue of Letters Patent of the United States, No. 805,067, to Halbert K. Hitchcock, on November 21, 1905, and the subsequent cancellation and reissue of said Letters Patent to said Halbert K. Hitchcock, on June 15, 1915, said Reissue Patent being No. 13,929.

These defendants further allege that said Reissue Patent No. 12,929, is invalid inasmuch as the claims thereof are too broad and too indefinite to be the subject of a valid reissue, and further because said reissue was not granted and issued in accordance with the law in such cases made and provided.

10. These defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraph "3" of said bill of complaint, except that they admit the issue of Letters Patent of the United States No. 805,068, to said Halbert K. Hitchcock on November 21, 1905.

11. These defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs "4", "5", "6" and "7" of said Bill of Complaint, except that they admit the issue of the following Letters Patent of the United States to Karl E. Peiler, to wit:

No. 1,199,108 issued September 26, 1916; Letters Patent No. 1,277,255, issued August 27, 1916: Letters Patent No. 1,292,033 issued January 21, 1919 and Letters Patent No. 1,328,799, issued January 20, 1920.

12. These defendants have no knowledge of the truth of the allogations [sic] allegations contained in Paragraph "8" of said bill of complaint save as set forth therein, and therefore demand proof of the same.

13. These defendants deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph "9" of said bill of complaint, to the effect that the several alleged inventions described and claimed, or alleged to be described and claimed, in said above mentioned Letters Patent are capable of conjoint use or are in effect jointly used by the defendant, United States Glass company; and those defendants further deny, as alleged in said bill of complaint, that said defendant, United States Glass company, infringes, or has made and used or sold machines embodying the alleged inventions claimed in the claims of said Letter Patent; or used the alleged improvements or inventions thereof, either severally or separately, or at one and the same time, and in one and the same operation of glass feeding.

14. These defendants further deny that the apparatus for feeding glass, manufactured by said William J. Miller, and installed by said Miller Glass Engineering company, in the factory of the United States Glass company, at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and the coprocesses of feeding glass used by said United States Glass company in connection with said apparatus, are any of them, infringements of any of the several patents in suit, but these defendants aver that said "William J. Miller is the original, first and sole inventor of the same.

15. These defendants, further answering, on information and belief, aver that said Halbert K. Hitchcock was not the original, first, and sole inventor of the mechanism for feeding glass described and claimed as new and patentable in said Letters Patent No. 805,067, and in said Re-issue of said Letters Patent No. 12,929, nor of the process or method for feeding glass described and claims as new and patentable in said Letters Patent No. 805,068, but on the contrary that the said alleged inventions in all material, essential and substantial features were known and used by others in this country, and fully described and set forth in divers printed publications and Letters Patent of the United States, and of foreign countries, prior to the alleged invention thereof, by said Halbert K. Hitchcock, and more than two years prior to his applications for Letters Patent thereon, among which prior Letters Patent are the following:

Number, date, name:

124,700 William Sellers, March 19, 1872.

245,539 J. H. Mitchell August 9, 1881.

291,381 J. H. Mitchell January 1, 1884.

328,570 F. C. Damm, October 20, 1885.

414,397 G. H. Goots, November 5, 1889.

421,620 H. Solnilze-Derge, February 18, 1890.

447,795 H. Solnilze-Derge, March 10, 1891.

485,367 W. Robertson, September 27, 1892.

487,426 R. S. Pease, December 6, 1892.

488,404 T. Robertson, December 20, 1892.

501,274 P. D. Harton, July 11, 1893.

524,097 J. C. Waller, August 7, 1894.

534,106 H. Huog, .February 12, 1895.

579,293 A. S. Capshart, March 25, 1897.

606,648 F. O 'Neil, June 14, 1898.

629,459 Hadall & Barr, July 25, 1899.

11,737 - J. T. Wainwright, Reissue, April 25, 1899.

650,176 D. W. Holmes, May 22, 1900.

665,918 J. C. Walier, August 14, 1900.

661,008 G. Garlson, October 30, 1900.

666,422 A. Humphrey, January 22, 1901.

691,371 C. W. Foster, January 21, 1902.

695,736 W. D. Keyes, April 1, 1902.

712,649 G. Carlson, November 4, 1902.

725,995 [sic] 723,983 H. Brooks [sic] Brooke, March 31, 1903.

726,550 A. G. Hamm, April 28, 1903.

775,740 Wilson & Dall, March 22, 1904.

810,167 W. D. Morrison, January 18, 1906.

814,773 Dixon & Marsh, March 13, 1906.

814,774 Dixon & Marsh, March 13, 1906.

820,479 Croskey, May 15, 1906.

883,779 H. M. Brookfield, April 7, 1908.

British 24, 319 of 1901. C. M. White.

And, in view of the above recited patents, these defendants aver that the state of the art, as shown by the said recited Letters Patent of the United States and foreign countries was such that the alleged inventions described and claimed as new and patentable in the Letters Patent in suit, to wit: Patent No. 805,067, Reissue Patent No. 13,929, and Patent No. 805,068, were not patentable inventions, but merely the result of the expected skill of a person skilled in the art and in support of these averments, these defendants will refer to the Letters Patent above set forth.

16. These defendants further aver that the drawing and specifications of said Hitchcock; Patents, Nos. 805,007, 805,069; Reissue No. 13,929 do not set forth and disclose operative mechanism, process or method for feeding glass, but that the said alleged inventions of said Letters Patent are inoperative; and that said Letters of Patent do not disclose the apparatus, process or method therein alleged to be described and claimed, in such full, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to successfully use such apparatus, process or method.

17. These defendants further aver that said Karl E. Poiler [sic] Peiler was not the original, first or sole inventor of the such alleged new and useful improvements in the art of conveying molten glass described and claimed as now and patentable in Letters Patent of the United States No. 1,199,108, but on the contrary that the said invention in all material, essential and substantial features was known and used by others in this country, and fully described and set forth in divors printed publications and Letters Patent of the United States and foreign countries prior to the alleged invention thereof by said Karl E. Peiler, and more than two years prior to his application for Letters Patent thereon, among which prior patents are the following:

Number, date, name:

487,426 R. S. Pease, December 4, 1882.

499,624 L. West, June 13, 1893.

511,587 S. W. Clark, December 26, 1893.

655,848 J. W. Sheppard, July 17, 1900

655,236 Howe & Wotmore, August 7, 1900.

744,426 J. W. Colburn, March 15, 1904.

835,245 S. Kribs, November 6, 1906.

854,511 W. A. Innsfield, May 21, 1907.

858,085 J. H. Lubbers, June 25, 1907.

885,779 [sic] 883,779 H. M. Brookfield, April 7, 1908.

958,613 R. Forgo, May 17, 1910.

961,602 R. C. Gangeword, June 14, 1910.

971,587 A. L. Bingham, October 4, 1910.

1,100,345 A. L. Bingham, June 16, 1914.

1,136,275 F. H. Rochrich, April 20, 1915.

British Patent to R. W. James, 25,925, of 1911, and to Ryland, No. 14,575 of 1885.

And, in view of the above patents, these defendants aver that the state of the art, as shown by the above cited Letters Patent of the United States and foreign countries, was such that the alleged invention described and claimed as new and patentable in Patent No. 1,199,108, was not a patentable invention, but merely the result of the expected skill of a person skilled in the art, and in support of this averment, these defendants will refer to the patents above receited [sic] recited.

18. These defendants further answering on information and belief aver that the invention or improvement alleged by the plaintiff to be described and claimed in said Peiler Patent No. 1,199,108, was in public use more than two years prior to the filing date of said Patent, to wit, May 18, 1912, at the following places within the limits of the United States of America, by the following individuals or corporations:

By H. M. Brookfield, and the Brookfield Glass Co., at Elmer, near Salem, N. J., and said use was known to Edward Ball, of Indiana; A. L. Bingham, of Muncie, Ind., and others.

And also by Ball Brothers Glass Co., at Muncie, Ind., and said use was known to Edward Ball, of Muncie. Ind., and A. L. Bingham, of Muncie, Ind.. and others.

Also, by the Pennsylvania Glass Co., at Anderson, Ind., and said use was known to John Schies, of Anderson, Ind., and others.

Also, by the Hazel-Atlas Glass Co., at Washington, Pa., and said use was known to Edward C. Stewart, of Washington, Pa.; Charles E. Brady, Washington, Pa.; Charles E. Blue, of Wheeling, W. Va. William Jones, of Wheeling, W. Va., and O. C. Noble, of Grafton, W. Va., and others.

Also, by Frank O'Neil, at Fostoria, O., and said use was known to said Frank O'Neil and others.

Also, by Atlas Glass Co., at Washington, Pa., and said use was known to William J. Miller, of Swissvale, Pa.; Edward Miller, of Columbus, O.; Leo Miller, of Tiffin, O.; Charles N. Brady, of Washington, Pa.; Charles E. Blue, of Wheeling, W. Va.; William Jones, of Wheeling, W. Va., and others.

Also, by the Federal Glass Co., at Columbus, O., and said use was known to William J. Miller, of Swissvale, Pa.; Edward Miller, of Columbus, O., and others.

Also, by Mason Fruit Jar Co., of Coffeyville, Kan., and said use was known to William J. Miller, of Swissvale; Charles W. Henderson, of Coffeyville, Kan.; Frank Houk, of San Francisco, Cal.; George Doyle, of Chattanooga, Tenn., and others.

Also, by Schramm Glass Co., formerly Schramm Automatic Sealer Co., Hillsboro, Ill., and said use was known to William J. Miller, of Swissvale, Pa.; S. L. Schramm, of Hillsboro, Ill.; Stephen Manning, of Altoona, Pa.; Louis Hiatt, of Hillsboro, Ill.; Edward Miller, of Columbus, O.; and others.

Also by Root Glass Co., at Terre Haute, Ind.; said use was also known to William J. Miller, of Swissvale, Pa., and Joseph Herter, of Terre Haute, Ind.; Alexander Dawe, of Glenshaw, Pa.; C. J. Root, of Terre Haute, Ind., and others.

Also, by the Gaynor [sic] Gayner Glass Works, at Salem, N. J., and said use was known to William J. Miller, of Swissvale, Pa., and J. William Gaynor [sic] Gayner, of Salem, N. J., and others.

20 [sic] 19. These defendants, further answering on information and belief, aver that said Karl E. Peiler was not thme [sic] the original, first and sole inventor of the alleged now and useful improvements in feeder for molten glass, described and claimed as now and patentable in Letters Patent of the United States, No. 1,277,255, but on the contrary that the said invention in all the material, essential and substantial features, was known and used by others in this country, and fully described and set forth in divers printed publications and Letters Patent of the United States and foreign countries, prior to the alleged invention thereof by said Karl Peiler, and more than two years prior to his application for .Letters Patent thereon, among which prior patents are the following:

Number, name, date:

323,682 D. M. Holmes, August 4, 1885.

524,097 J. C. Walier, August 7, 1894.

421,620 H. Schulze-Berge, February 18, 1890.

650,176 R. H. Holmes, May 22, 1900.

661,008 G. Carlson, October 30, 1900.

810,167 W. D. Morrison, January 16, 1906.

836,297 H. M. Brookfield, November 20, 1906.

883,779 H. M. Brookfield, April 7, 1908.

892,015 - H. Soverin, June 30, 1920.

901,881 G. E. Cleveland, October 20, 1908.

1,121,608 O. A. Bridges, December 22, 1914.

1,251,156 A. Wilzin, December 25, 1917.

British No. 7,185 of 1912, A. Wilzin French, A. Wilzin, March 31, 1911.

And, in view of the then state of the art, as shown by the above recited Letters Patent of the United States, and foreign countries, the alleged invention described and claimed as now and patentable is said Letters Patent of the United States No. 1,277,255, was not a patentable invention, but simply the result of the expected skill of a person skilled in the art, and in support of this averment, these defendants will refer to the patents above receited [sic] recited.

20. These defendants, further answering on information and belief, aver that said Karl E. Peiler was not the original, first and sole inventor of the alleged and now useful and improvements in Glass Pressing Machine, described and claimed as now and patentable in Letters Patent of the United States, No. 1,292,033, but on the contrary that the said invention in all the material, essential and substantial features, was known and used by others in this country, and fully described and set forth in divers printed publications and Letters Patent of the United States and foreign countries, prior to the alleged invention thereof by said Karl E. Peiler, and more than two years prior to his application for Letters Patent thereon, among which prior patents are the following:

Number, name, date.

442,890 S. Hipkins, Jr., December 16, 1890.

471,561 J. A. Widmor, March 22, 1892.

495,228 H. Parker, April 11, 1895.

519,113 C. Grove, May 1, 1894.

502,636 W. Fetters, April 19, 1898.

604,907 O. E. Solmunk, May 31, 1898.

567,071 C. E. Blue, September 1, 1896.

618,178 R. P. Lippincott, January 24, 1899.

622,207 J. T. Rowe, April 4, 1899.

646,948 Brookfield & Kribs, April 10, 1900.

653,523 F. O. 'Neil, July 10, 1900.

668,910 P. Ebeling, February 20, 1901.

674,378 R. Good, Jr., May 21, 1901.

675,166 G. C. Pyle, May 28, 1901.

709,724 D. C. Ripley, September 23, 1902.

767,811 R. Good, Jr., August 16, 1904.

848,961 [sic] 849,461 T. J. Conway, April 9, 1907.

877,981 A. W. Beeson, February 4, 1908.

1,027,567 J. Schies, May 28, 1912.

1,057,918 S. W. Winber, March 25, 1915.

1,136,257 E. M. Rochrich, April 30, 1915.

And, in view of the then state of the art, as shown by the above recited Letters Patent of the United States, and foreign countries, the alleged invention described and claimed as now and patentable in said Letters Patent of the United States, No. 1,292,033, was not a patentable invention, but simply the result of the expected skill of a person skilled in the art, and in support of this averment, these defendants will refer to the patents above recited.

21. These defendant, further answering on information and belief, aver that the invention or improvement alleged by the plaintiff to be described and claimed in said Poiler [sic] Peiler Patent No. 1,292,033, was in public use more than two years prior to the filing date of said patent, to wit. August 11, 1915, at the following places within the limits of the United States of America, and by the following individuals or corporations:

By William J. Miller, of Swissvale, Pa., at the United States Glass Co., at Glassport, Pa., and said use was known to Marion G. Bryce, of Pittsburgh, Pa.; Reuben Haley, of Sewickley, Pa., and others.

By Edward Miller, of Columbus, O., at the factory of the Federal Glass Co., at Columbus, O., and said use was known to W. J. Miller, of Swissvale, Pa., and others.

By Atlas Glass Co., at Washington, Pa., and said use was known to William J. Miller, of Swissvale, Pa.; Charles H. Brady, of Washington, Pa.; O. P. Cook, of Greensburg, Pa., and others.

By Kerr Glass Co., at Altoona, Kan., and said use was known to William J. Miller, of Swissvale, Pa.; O. P. Cook, of Greensburg, Pa.; Geo. Ruppert, of Sand Springs, Okla.; William Woods, of Altoona, Kan., and others.

By Brookfield Glass Co., at Elmer, N. J., and said use was known by K. [sic] M. K. Holmes, of Muncie, Ind., and others.

By Salem Glass Works, at Salem, N. J., and said use was known to William J. Miller, of Swissvale, Pa.; Samuel E. Winder, of Waltham, Mass.; J. William Cainer [sic] Gayner, of Salem, N. J.; F. Pauling, of Salem, N. J., and others.

22. These defendants, further answering on information and belief, aver that said Karl E. Peiler was not the original, first and sole inventor of the alleged now and useful improvements in Paddle or Plunger for Molten Glass, described and claimed as now and patentable in Letters Extent of the United States No. 1,328,799, but on the contrary that the said invention in all the material essential and substantial features, was known and used by others in this country, and fully described and set forth in divers printed publications and Letters Patent of the United States and foreign countries; prior to the alleged invention thereof by said Karl E. Poiler [sic] Peiler, and more than two years prior to his application for Letter Patent thereon, among which prior patents are the following:

Number, name, date.

161,644 H. Swank, April 6, 1875.

205,084 A. J. Hawe, June 18, 1878.

410,192 C. S. Price, September 3, 1889.

411,519 J. K. Griffith, September 24, 1889.

668,242 W. J. Watkins, February 19, 1901.

698,565 C. W. Sherman, April 29, 1902.

712,111 J. H. Allendorfer, October 28, 1902.

805,054 I. W. Colburn, November 21, 1905.

820,479 J. H. Croskey, May 15, 1906.

852,644 C. C. Bacon, May 7, 1907.

814,774 Dixon & Marsh, May 13, 1906.

927,715 D. Collior, July 15, 1909.

955,704 J. E. Shaeffer, April 19, 1910.

1,085,181 N. Teetor, January 27, 1914.

1,166,576 S. E. Bowman, January 4, 1916.

1,207,251 H. A. Wettengel, December, 5, 1916.

1,212,860 G. A. Wettengel, January 16, 1917.

1,218,492 C. T. Tatum, March 15, 1917.

And, in view of the state of the art, as shown by the above recited Letters Patent of the United States, and foreign countries, the alleged invention described and claimed as new and patentable in said Letters Patent of the United States No. 1,528,799, was not a patentable invention, but simply the result of the expected skill of a person skilled in the art, and in support of this averment, these defendants will refer to the patents above recited.

23. These defendants further deny that they have installed at any time in the factory of the United States Glass Co. a machine for pressing glass, embodying the alleged improvements or invention described and claimed in Poiler [sic] Peiler Patent No. 1,292,033.

24. These defendants deny that any of their acts in the premises neither individually or jointly, have been or constitute an infringement of any of the Letters Patent in suit, but have been in any mannr [sic] manner or why to the damage or injury to the right of plaintiff, and they further deny that the plaintiff is entitled to any belief whatsoever against the defendants.

Those defendants therefore say that the bill of complaint be dismissed and that they be allowed their costs in this proceeding.

--

Keywords:Hemingray : Brookfield : Gayner Glass Works : Duquesne Glass Company : Homer Brooke : Patent
Researcher notes: 
Supplemental information: Patents: 723,983; 820,479; 883,779; 835,245; 849,461; 836,297; 646,948
Researcher:Bob Stahr
Date completed:December 21, 2008 by: Bob Stahr;