Opinion
Also Consolidated Civ. A. Nos. 70-968; 69-1096; 68-705; 69-777; 70-14; 70-189; 70-250; 70-295; 70-358; 70-385; 70-386; 70-391; 70-493; 70-622; 70-628; 70-677; 70-683; 71-87; 71-88; 71-89; 71-90; 71-91; 71-92; 71-93; 71-94; 71-95; 71-96; 71-97; 71-98; 71-99; 71-100; 71-101; 71-102; 71-115; 71-126; 71-127; and 71-283.
January 2, 1973.
John W. Malley, William K. West, Jr., and W. Warren Taltavull, of Cushman, Darby Cushman, Washington, D.C., and O.G. Calhoun, Jr., of Haynsworth, Perry, Bryant, Marion Johnstone, Greenville, S.C., for Burlington Industries, Inc., Madison Throwing Co., Inc., Leon-Ferenbach, Inc. and National Spinning Co., Inc.
Paul Bell, and Charles B. Park, III, of Parrott, Bell, Seltzer, Park Gibson, Charlotte, N.C., and Fletcher C. Mann, of Leatherwood, Walker, Todd Mann, Greenville, S.C., for The Duplan Corp., The Schwarzenbach-Huber Co., Jonathan Logan, Inc., Frank Ix Sons Va., Corp., Lawrence Texturing Corp. and Burkyarns, Inc. Also Allan Trumbull, of Willkie, Farr Gallagher, New York City, appeared.
David Rabin, and McNeill Smith, and Michael R. Abel, of Smith, Moore, Smith, Schell Hunter, Greensboro, N.C., for Texfi Industries, Inc., Blanchard Yarn Co., Reliable Silk Dyeing Co., Dixie Yarns, Inc., Tex-Elastic Corp., Hemmerich Industries, Spring-Tex, Inc., Olympia Mills, Textured Fibres, Virginia Mills, Inc., and Throwing Corp. of America.
Thomas A. Evins, of Butler, Means, Evins, Browne, Spartanburg, S.C., and Jay Greenfield, of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton Garrison, New York City, for Deering Milliken, Inc., and Deering Milliken Research Corp.
Rufus M. Ward, of Ward, Howell Barnes, Spartanburg, S.C., and Granville M. Brumbaugh, of Brumbaugh, Graves, Donohue Raymond, New York City, for Ateliers Roannais de Constructions Textiles.
On February 4, 1972, plaintiff Throwsters, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, filed in this court a motion for summary judgment of invalidity as to two separate United States patents. The first motion seeks an order of this court declaring invalid and void United States Patent 3,382,656, filed January 3, 1966, and issued May 14, 1968, in the name of Henri Crouzet, (and assigned to Chavanoz) for "False Twist Frames and Method for Texturing Synthetic Filaments," including all claims of the said patent, on the theory that the American patent is invalid under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 102(d) because the alleged invention of the American patent was first patented by the applicant in France (December 27, 1965) prior to the date of the application in this country (January 3, 1966), an application having been filed in France (November 13, 1964) more than twelve months before the filing in the United States. The French patent in question before the court is plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 638, the same being French Patent 1,427,001.
35 U.S.C.A. § 102(d) provides: Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent.
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
(d) the invention was first patented or caused to be patented by the applicant or his legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application filed more than twelve months before the filing of the application in the United States.
An identical motion was made to have this court declare invalid U.S. Patent 3,137,119, filed June 14, 1961, issued June 16, 1964, in the name of Henri Crouzet, including all claims of said patent(s) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(d). As to this patent, plaintiffs claim that on June 12, 1961, prior to the date of the application in this country on June 14, 1961, a patent was issued to Ateliers Roannis de Construction Textiles (a French corporation hereinafter referred to as ARCT) on an application filed in France June 8, 1960, more than twelve months before the filing in the United States. (See Exhibit No. 788 which has a copy, in French, of French Patent 1,267,239.)
In addition to seeking a declaration of invalidity, plaintiffs seek to enjoin the defendants from ever again asserting or charging an infringement or seeking to collect royalties on the patents, and ask for attorneys' fees, a return of all royalties previously collected, damages, and other relief.
It is admitted that the defendants, or some of them, have sued the plaintiffs for infringement, and as noted in Monsanto Co. v. Rohm and Haas Co. (E.D.Pa. 1970), 312 F. Supp. 778, 792, under the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, one who is sued for patent infringement may challenge the validity of the patent on the ground that it was fraudulently procured, or because the patentee was guilty of some other inequitable conduct or bad faith in his proceeding before the patent office. Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172, 86 S.Ct. 347, 15 L.Ed.2d 247 (1965); Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., 324 U.S. 806, 65 S.Ct. 993, 89 L.Ed. 1381 (1945); Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 64 S.Ct. 997, 88 L.Ed. 1250 (1944); Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co., 290 U.S. 240, 54 S.Ct. 146, 78 L.Ed. 293 (1933). Thus, it is obvious that the plaintiff has the right to pursue the motion which is here for a decision.
For the purpose of this record, we can consider the two American patents as having the same posture and the two French patents as having the same posture, that is, in each instance, the application in the United States was filed after the delivery date of the French patent, but before the French patent was published in the Bulletin Officiel de la Propriete Industrielle (BOPI). It is admitted that in each instance the delivery date of the French patent was prior to the United States application, and the date of publication in the BOPI was after the application was made in the United States. As to each of the American patents, application was made in the name of Henri Crouzet, as inventor. As to each of the French patents, application was made in the name of Ateliers Roannis de Constructions Textiles S.A. over the signature of Leo Soep. Henri Crouzet has been identified throughout the record in this case as an officer and/or president of ARCT, and Leo Soep has been identified as a conseil in pattents frequently employed by ARCT to procure the French patents. All of this is a part of the record upon which this court must make its decision.
Initially, this court has to determine whether or not the French patents and the United States patents are for all intent and purposes, identical. The arguments as to identity, displayed before the court, were only as to United States Patent 3,382,656, and French Patent 1,427,001. The court has before it, and had at the time of the hearing of the motion, a copy of the French Patent 1,427,001, with an English translation, and a copy of U.S. Patent 3,382,656. An examination of the language of French Patent 1,427,001, as issued by the Institute Nationale de la Propriete Industrielle (INPI) (French Patent Office) and the patent issued by the U.S. Patent Office 3,382,656, leaves no question but that the patent applied for, in each instance, was for the same and identical improvements in False Twist Frames to Texture Synthetic Yarns. It is true that the language in the American patent contains some additions but this does not change the basic nature of the invention (improvement) sought to be patented. The drawing attached to the French patent is a very simple drawing and the drawing attached to the American patent has two figures, Figure One and Figure Two. A comparison of Figure One on the American patent, and the drawing attached to the French patent leaves no doubt but that to identify one is to identify the other, and that the figures on the respective patents represent the same idea or improvement sought to be patented. In addition, counsel for the plaintiffs read into the record of the hearing of the motion a letter from Mr. Soep (of ARCT) to Dr. Norman Armitage (of Deering Milliken Research Corp., hereinafter called DMRC) apparently written and dated in Paris November 8, 1964, containing this language:
It is agreed that the ruling of the court as to these patents will apply equally to U.S. Patent 3,137,119 and French Patent 1,267,239.
It is apparent that the American Patent Office requires more in the way of proof and explanation in the application, explanation and claims, than does the French Patent Office.
It appears that a drawing, schematic or otherwise, is not a requirement of French patent law.
Please find herewith a translation made in Great Britain of a patent application filed in France by our company on the 14th of November, 1964.
We beg you to examine whether a corresponding application should be filed in the United States.
If you choose to file we want you to postpone the filing until the end of the priority period. Of course, you may adopt [sic] the wording in any suitable way; the translation does not seem to be very good.
In an obvious reply to this letter, of date December 12, 1964, Dr. Armitage wrote to Mr. Soep:
Thank you for sending me with your letter of December 8th a translation of the patent application filed in France by Chavanoz relating to loom improvements. I am passing it along to Walter Mueller for examination of the subject matter and to decide whether it will be advantageous to file a corresponding application in the United States prior to November 13, 1965.
It may be that another application was contemplated. If so, this was not pressed or explained by the defendants, in any way, and Soep and Armitage are no longer available for clarification (both Soep and Armitage are deceased). Absent any indication that another invention was contemplated, the court, reconciling the dates in the letters with the dates on the patents before it in connection with this motion, is led to conclude that the inventions under study are those involved.
The letters have been handed to the Clerk and she has been ordered to make them a part of the official record, since they were read without objection; they are now exhibits in the file of the case.
It is significant that the added language in the American patent does not change the device or process sought to be patented. The comparative language of the patents is reproduced as Appendix "A" of this Order for the purpose of comparison.
Introduced into the record of the case, and relied upon by plaintiffs' counsel, is the File Wrapper for original Patent 3,382,656. This shows that Henri Crouzet, of Lorie, France assigned the patent rights or rights of application to Moulinage Et Retorderie De Chavanoz, Chavanoz (ISERE) France, a corporation of France. The principal attorneys shown are Dr. Norman C. Armitage and Walter E. Mueller, with correspondence to be sent to Walter E. Mueller, Post Office Box 1927, Spartanburg, South Carolina. The testimony reveals that both Armitage and Mueller were, at this time, acting for and in the employ of DMRC. On page 9 of the File Wrapper is a statement dated December 17, 1965, over the signature of Henri Crouzet, and which reports a blank at the end, as follows:
Exhibit No. 951.
I do not know and do not believe this invention was ever known or used before my invention or discovery thereof, or patented or described in any printed publication in any country before my invention or discovery thereof, or more than one year prior to this application, or in public use or on sale in the United States for more than one year prior to this application; that this invention or discovery has not been patented in any country foreign to the United States on an application filed by me or my legal representatives or assigns more than twelve months before this application; and that no application for patent on this invention or discovery has been filed by me or my representatives or assigns in any country foreign to the United States except as follows:
[Blank]
The space indicated after the word "follows" was blank so that the file reflects M. Crouzet's representation that he did not know of the patent about which Soep had written to Armitage. This has an overtone which may bring into play the equity powers of this court, but the issue of law requires immediate attention. The morality of this representation, or misrepresentation, of course, may be discussed later by counsel, if they desire.Before entering any discussion as to the delivery date or the publication date of the French patent in France, the court takes judicial notice of the fact that the processing of a patent in the United States and the processing of a patent in France greatly differ. In France, the patent office is concerned primarily with (1) novelty and (2) industrial impact. Once a given application has satisfied the filing requirements and been processed, it is ready for delivery (delivré), and some four weeks after delivery it is published in the BOPI. An example of that may be found in the French patent under consideration which shows, "demandé de le 13 novembre 1964 á 14h 39m, à Paris; Delivré Pararrété du 27 decembre 1965." (Bulletin Officiel de la Propriete Industriele, no 6 de 1966). The deliverance date is the date of the signing or facsimile of signing by the patent ministry, or minister, and upon that date, and thereafter, the inventor who receives the patent, at his discretion, may disclose the contents of his application to third parties, for selling or other considerations. The applicant has the right to request a postponement for one year in "deliverance." The publication, and making available to the public, is the publication of the "ABREGE descriptive" (summary specification in the official gazette). The moment of publication is considered to be the point of time when the official gazette (BOPI) is brought from the French National Printing Office and physically enters the reading room on the ground floor of the INPI. (Mm. Carpentier cited an example in which, through an accident, the delivery truck coming from the southern part of Paris was unable to make delivery by INPI office closing hours, making it therefore necessary to issue an "Erraturn" notice to correct the publication date).
While in Paris sitting as an American court for the purpose of taking live depositions of French witnesses unable to travel to the United States, this court, accompanied by counsel for plaintiffs and for defendants, and an interpreter, visited the French Patent Office. While there, by means of an interpreter, a colloquy was had with a French lawyer, of the Patent Office, who was also Director of Public Relations, Madame Carpentier. Because of objections by counsel, Ms. Carpentier was not allowed to give the French definitions of the term "deliverance", "Arrete", or "Abrege descriptif." The court observed then, and later, that he would prefer to have the French Court say when a patent came into being, or when a process became a patented process, rather than have an American Court interpret the impact of the French processing apparati. This was objected to by counsel, and so this court is put in the position of having to interpret, by application of American law, the impact of the activities in France on the French patent in question. This court must interpret the effect of "delivré" and "publication."
The thrust of plaintiffs' argument is that, in each instance, upon the delivery date, each French patent was issued, and the invention was patented or caused to be patented by the applicant on that date. There is no question but that the French application, in each instance, preceded the application for a patent in this country by more than twelve months, which is one of the two requisites affecting validity under 35 U.S.C.A. § 102(d). The contention of the defendants is that the date of publication in the official bulletin, in each instance, is the date the invention was patented, as that completed the French processing of the patent. Defendants contend that until the processing was complete, the invention was not available to the public so as to comprise a date upon which the motion could hang.
Initially, this court must consider what a patent is and what it does. A patent confers upon the owner the right to exclude others from making, using or selling the invention during the life of the patent. Bell Intercontinental Corporation v. United States (1967), 381 F.2d 1004, 1010, 180 Ct.Cl. 1071. A patent by its very nature is affected with a public interest. As recognized by the Constitution it is a special privilege, designed to serve the public purpose of promoting the "Progress of Science and useful Arts." At the same time a patent is an exception to the general rule against monopolies and to the right of access to a free and open market. Monsanto Co. v. Rohm Haas Co. (CCA 3, 1972), 456 F.2d 592, 598. A patent is a species of property, and gives the patentee exclusive right to make, use and vend the invention of discovery for a limited period. That is to say, it carries for the statutory period "a right to be free from competition in the practice of the invention." Transparent-Wrap Machine Corporation v. Stokes Company (1947), 329 U.S. 637, 643, 67 S.Ct. 610, 614, 91 L.Ed. 563. Each patent gives its owner a monopoly in respect to its disclosures, so much and no more. It is the grant of the exclusive right to manufacture, use and sell the invention which it discloses and the particular invention is what the patent grant protects by the monopoly, not that invention plus some embellishment, improvement, or alternate product or process which also happens to be patented. Motion Pictures Patents Co. v. Universal Film Co. (1917) 243 U.S. 502, 511-513, 37 S.Ct. 416, 61 L.Ed. 871; American Securit Co. v. Shatterproof Glass Corp., 268 F.2d 769, 777 (3rd Cir. 1959). A patent is not the granting of a right to make, use or sell, a grant is only the right to exclude others from making, using or selling the patented device (see 35 U.S.C. § 154, infra.). A patent is a legitimate monopoly having as its primary purpose the advancement of the arts and sciences rather than reward to the individual. It is not a certificate of merit, but an incentive to disclosure. Valmont Industries Inc. v. Yuma Manufacturing Co. (D.Colo. 1969), 296 F. Supp. 1291, 1294. The patent privilege and the reason for its existence leads to the concept of enforcement of this right. Recognizing that the patentee is granted this exclusive right insofar as his invention is concerned, the "heart of his legal monopoly is the right to invoke the State's power to prevent others from utilizing his discovery without his consent." Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 135, 89 S.Ct. 1562, 1583, 23 L.Ed.2d 129 (1969).
35 U.S.C.A. § 154 provides: Contents and term of patent.
Every patent shall contain a short title of the invention and a grant to the patentee, his heirs or assigns, for the term of seventeen years, subject to the payment of issue fees as provided for in this title, of the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling the invention throughout the United States, referring to the specification for the particulars thereof. A copy of the specification and drawings shall be annexed to the patent and be a part thereof.
The question narrows to "upon what date, under the patent processes of France, did ARCT gain the rights which the very nature of a patent includes and envisions." It affirmatively appears to this court that those inventor's exclusive rights which a patent envisions, accrued on the delivery (delivré) date. On that date the inventor-patentee could sell, trade, publish or otherwise do as he wished. The seal of the ministry was affixed and the making known to the public was a matter which did not impede, change or otherwise limit the right granted on the delivery (delivré) date. Of doubtful authority because of its ancient vintage by virtue of the changes in the French patent law, is Sirocco Engineering Company v. B.F. Sturtevant Co. (CCA 2, 1914), 220 F. 137, 143. There the court in speaking on the question of when the process was patented in France said:
No patent can issue here for that which is patented in a foreign country, and it is patented there the moment it is sealed or enrolled. Ireson v. Pierce (C.C.) 39 F. 795.
Of value to this discussion is General Electric Co. v. Hygrade Sylvania Corp., 61 F. Supp. 476 (S.D.N.Y. 1944), wherein, in construing the effective date of a Belgian patent, the court was constrained to hold that the date Phillip's invention was patented in Belgium was the date of the decree issuing the patent, which was November 30, 1928, and not the date of publication, January 19, 1929. To the same effect is Sun Rubber Co. v. National Latex Products Co., 148 F. Supp. 469, 470 (N.D.Ohio 1957), wherein, in construing time for the application of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the court said that an Italian invention was "patented" on the date the patent was granted in Italy, notwithstanding that the patent was not printed until a later date. In Ritter v. Rohm and Haas Company (S.D.N.Y. 1967), 271 F. Supp. 313, 317, in construing the meaning of the word patented under the French law, the court stated:
While this case discusses a ruling under Section 102(b) of Title 35 nevertheless the reasoning would be more appropriate for Section 102(d).
There is no dispute that, in France, all the rights of a patentee accrued to him on the "delivré" date of his patent. On that date the Ministry of Industry grants the application by signing a decree. Soon afterward the Patent Office notifies the applicant. As of the "delivré" date, the patentee acquires a monopoly right to exclude others and he can sue for infringement. However, unlike American patents, French patents are not published on the same day they are granted. Here, the fact that the Farbe application had been granted was not published in the Bulletin Officiel de la Propriete Industrielle (the "BOPI") until July 6, 1945 and the text of the patent was not published in printed form until August 28, 1945.
Of significant note in the application of this case to the facts before us is the fact that under 35 U.S.C. § 102(d) there is no requirement of "availability to the public." Such requirement has been ascribed to 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Defendant urges upon the court that the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(d) are, in effect, the same. If such were true, the necessity for 35 U.S.C. § 102(d) would be eliminated. This court has already noted that 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) makes specific reference to publication while there is a patent absence of any reference to publication in 35 U.S.C. § 102(d). A careful reading of §§ 102(a) and 102(b) as contrasted with § 102(d) discloses that the former are concerned with patent applications in this country by persons other than the person holding the patent in a foreign country. Section 102(d) however is indisputably addressed to the inventor or his representative who has filed an application and been granted a patent in a foreign country, and then endeavors to patent the same invention in this country. Viewed in this light, it becomes clear that the omission of any reference to publication in § 102(d) is a meaningful omission, as the inventor or his representative would have knowledge of the issuance of the patent without any general publication. The requirement of publication in § 102(a) and § 102(b) is clearly to insure that persons, other than the inventor or his representative, are given notice of the existence of the patent.
Defendants also urge upon the court reasoning applied in cases involving secret registrations. Such is Ex Parte Weiss (Patent Office Board of Appeals, 1967), 159 U.S. Patent Quarterly 122, In re Ekenstam, 256 F.2d 321, 45 CCPA 1022, and other similar cases. This court does not have, in this case, an issue of secret registration. The line of cases is not controlling.
In this case, the French inventor received from the foreign country the exclusive privilege that his laws provided for on the delivery (delivré) date of each French patent. Therefore, the American invention, in each instance, was first patented or caused to be patented by the applicant, or his legal representatives or his assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application filed more than twelve months before the filing of the application in the United States. The American patentee was not entitled to the patent issued him in each instance. Because of the provisions of 35 U.S.C.A. § 102(d), each of the American patents is invalid.
The motion to declare invalid the two American patents 3,382,656 and 3,137,119, is granted.
This court will, at some future date, set a hearing and hear counsel on the question of attorneys' fees, damages and related issues.
And it is so ordered.
APPENDIX A French Patent 1,427,001 United States Patent 3,382,656
As translated by Harvard Translating Editorial Service, 927 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, [Exhibit 638-B].
In one of the systems used In one of the systems employed in this field the yarns in this field, the threads undergo heating in contact undergo the heating in contact with stationary convex metal with fixed convex metallic heating elements. Initially, heating elements. Initially, hollow elements had been hollow elements were provided provided with interior through which there was circulation of a fluid heated circulated a fluid heated at a to a regulated constant regulated constant temperature. temperature. Then, electric Subsequently, electric heat was current also was used with employed also with appropriate suitable regulation. The adjustment. The device employed device used was first a curved was first of all a bent metallic metal channel, called channel, called an "umbrella "umbrella ribs," itself rib," which constituted in constituting the electric itself the electric resistor resistance heated by Joule heated by the Joule effect. This effect. Then this channel was channel was later replaced by a replaced by a curved metal bent metallic tube connected as tube previously mounted in an before as an electric resistor. electric resistance. The tubes Tubes had the advantage that had the advantage of an easier they were more readily thermally thermal insulation. All the insulated. All the tubes were tubes were joined in series connected in series and were and were carefully calibrated carefully calibrated to ensure a to assure a constant constant temperature from tube temperature from tube to tube. to tube.
To measure the temperature For measuring the temperature and for its regulation, at and for adjusting it, at least least one of the tubes of the one of the tubes of a spinning frame was free of yarn and frame was free from filament and contained a thermal probe contained a temperature probe connected to control and connected to monitoring and regulating instruments. adjusting instruments.
The object of the present The object of the present invention is a heating tube invention is to provide a for false heating twist frames with a section tube for "false-twist" spinning with several lobes subdividing frames having a cross-section the tube into several twin comprising a number of lobes channels, one channel subdividing the tube into a containing an electric, number of coupled channels, one elastic probe, whereas the channel containing a resilient other channels permit the electric probe, while the other passage of the yarns to be channels permit the passage of heated. Each active channel is filaments to be heated. Each part of a work position with active channel forms part of an the other usual elements, operating position with the i.e., particularly, a delivery other usual elements, i.e., reel, delivery rolls, a false notably a supply reel, delivery twist spindle and a receiving members, a false-twist spindle reel. and a take-up reel.
The invention extends not The invention not only only to the curved tubes with includes bent tubes directly, direct electric heating by electrically heated by resistance, but also to the resistance, but also straight straight tubes. Heating can tubes. The heating may also be also be indirect. In any case, indirect. In any case, the the invention is in no way invention is in no way limited limited to the following to the following embodiment, but embodiment, but covers any covers any variant in the same variant in the same spirit. spirit. The object is to provide The purpose is a heating a heating element comprising a element with several parallel number of parallel channels, one channels one of which contains of which contains a temperature a thermal probe, whereas the probe, while the others serve others serve for passage of for the passage of filament, the the yarn, the probe being probe being subjected to the under the same thermal same thermal conditions as the conditions as the yarns. filaments.
The system further has the In addition, the system has advantage of permitting the the advantage that it permits multiplication of the multiplication of the output of production of frames which is the spinning frames, which is obviously governed in the obviously primarily determined first place by the number of by the number of channels for yarn passage channels. With the passage of filament. With tubes having a section with tubes having a cross-section three lobes, production is comprising a plurality of lobes, doubled for the same working particularly three lobes, the rate. Another advantage is output is doubled for the same that each working position can working speed. Another advantage be controlled effectively in is that each working position regard to the thermal may be effectively controlled in conditions. regard to the thermal conditions.
The example of embodiment The embodiment will enable the will make it possible to invention, which is illustrated understand better the by the diagrammatic drawing on invention which is illustrated the accompanying sheet, to be by the hypothetical drawing on more readily understood. the accompanying sheet.
In the drawing, there is In FIGURE 1, there is shown an embodiment with a illustrated an embodiment tube having a 3-lobe section, like a comprising a tube having a clover leaf. Such a tube can three-lobe or "clover leaf" be obtained by passage of a cross-section. Such a tube may larger tube in a suitable die, be obtained by passing a larger deforming the tube. tube through an appropriate die by which the tube is deformed.
The tube of the example, In FIGURE 1, the tube of the shown in section, comprises 3 example, which is illustrated in channels 1, 2, 3, connected by section, comprises three diaphragms 4, 5, 6, created channels 1, 2 and 3 connected by upon deformation of the diaphragms 4, 5 and 6 created in initial tube. These diaphragms the deformation of the initial can be closed by complete tube. These diaphragms may be locking of the opposite closed by complete clamping of partitions, as in the section the opposed partitions, but this shown, but it is not is not essential. Each of the obligatory. plurality of lobes or tubes may, of course, constitute separate tubes that are interconnected by a good heat conducting means, such as copper or alloy, or equivalent heat conducting metal means.
Channel 1 contains a thermal The channel 1 contains a probe connected to control and temperature probe connected to regulation apparatus making it monitoring and adjusting devices possible to check the for checking the temperature of temperature of channel 1 at the channel 7 at each instant each moment and to keep it in and maintaining it between narrow predetermined limits. predetermined narrow limits.
Channels 2 and 3 contain The channels 2 and 3 contain yarns 8 and 9, undergoing filaments 8 and 9 which undergo heating. the heating.
In direct heating by In the direct resistance resistance of the tube the heating of the tube, the temperature is the same temperature is the same everywhere, except for losses throughout, subject to losses by by radiation, which can differ radiation, which may differ slightly, by the three slightly in the same channels, channels, if the thermal if the thermal insulation is not insulation is not absolutely absolutely uniform. uniform.
Referring to FIGURE 2 of the drawing, the filaments 10 and 10' pass from the cones 11 and 11' through guide means 12 and 12' and then through parallel lobes 13 and 13', which in the form shown is curved so that the filaments contact the surfaces of the tubes as they are fed therethrough. In some instances, however, the tubes may be made straight instead of curved and the filaments be caused to contact the sides of the tubes by suitable guide means. The heating tubes that comprise lobes 13 and 13' are connected to tube 14 through heat transfer means 16 with terminals 15 which are connected to a suitable source of electric current for heating the tubes by resistance effect. Lobes 13 and 13' are preferably interconnected by a heat transfer means that is preferably made of the same metal as the lobes, so as to have the same resistance, and is preferably made from a metal known for its high resistance properties, for example, of nickel chrome alloy or metals or alloys of a lower resistance. The applied current is preferably low. The heater tubes 13 and 13' are interconnected by heat transfer means 16. The tubes may be thermally insulated at least in the areas where the tubes are not connected by enclosing them in a larger tube 17 and 17' which are cut away to allow the heat transfer means 16 to be joined to the heater tubes, and are lined by an insulating material, for example, vermiculite which fills the space between the inner wall of the large tubes and surfaces of the heater tubes or resistor tubes 13 and 13'. The ends of the large tube 17 are closed by disc 18 and 18', for example, by a plastic material with an orifice the size of the diameter of tube 13 and 13'.
The filaments after passing through the tubes 13 and 13' are fed through false twist spindles 9 and 18' which are rotated by simple means indicated as a belt 20 and is adapted to produce a twist in the filament which feeds back on the filament towards the heating tubes 13 and 13' until arrested by contact with the filaments with the surfaces of such tubes. The temperature of the tubes 13 and 13' is adapted to heat the filaments for setting the false twist. Finally, the filaments 10 and 10' pass through a guide 21 and 21' and are then wound onto spools 22 and 22. Therefore, by means of this invention at least two yarns and actually many more may be advanced through adjacent parallel lobes of a single tube, or through adjacent individual tubes that are interconnected by a suitable heat transfer means with a means located in an adjacent tube that is also connected by heat transfer means to each of the said other lobes or tubes for measuring and controlling temperature throughout the heater tube system.
(The invention can further The invention may comprise comprise the following elements in addition the following separately or in any elements singly or in any combinations: combination:
a. The tubes can be heated (a) The tubes may be heated by any means; by any means. b. Direct or indirect (b) Direct or indirect electric heating is used; electric heating is employed.
c. The tubes can be straight (c) The tubes may be or curved; straight or bent.
d. Particularly, use is made (d) There is employed of a curved tube, with direct notably a bent tube directly heating by resistance with a heated by resistance and 3-lobe section, with or without having a cross-section intermediate partitions. [ This comprising three lobes, withs section contained as paragraph optionally partitioned two of Claim 1. in French intermediate diaphragms. Patent 1,427,001.])
Each of the individual yarns that are processed by the method and apparatus of this invention may be false twisted by individual spindles or by a single spindle that twists a number of yarns. In the second case, a special yarn guide means is needed so that the plurality of yarns are properly fed into the false-twist spindle.
CLAIMS
Having thus described the invention, what is claimed is:
1. Improvement in false 1. In a false-twist twist frames for texturizing apparatus for the crimping of of synthetic yarns and a textile yarn including remarkable in that the frames delivery means for advancing comprise heating the yarn from supply to of tubes with several lobes, takeup and between said forming multiple parallel delivery means, twisting channels one of which contains means and heat setting twist a thermal probe, connected to within the yarn, respectively control and regulating the improvement comprising a apparatus, whereas the others heating tube having at least serve for the passage of the three lobes forming multiple yarns to be heated parallel channels, each individually for setting of connected by a heat transfer the false twist applied by diaphragm, one of said lobes individual spindles upstream containing a temperature from the tubes. probe, and at least two other of said lobes serving as The invention can further passageways for individual comprise the following filaments, resistance elements separately or in any electrical heating means for combinations: heating filaments disposed within said lobes, whereby the a. The tubes can be heated filaments are individually by any means; heated for setting the false twist applied by an individual b. Direct or indirect spindle downstream of the electric heating is used; tube.
c. The tubes can be straight or curved;
d. Particularly, use is made of a curved tube, with direct heating by resistance with a 3-lobe section, with or without intermediate partitions.
2. False twist frames for 2. The apparatus of claim 1 texturizing of synthetic yarns wherein the heater tube is and with productivity acuate in shape. multiplied by the fact of the simultaneous passage of several yarns in heating tubes, subdivided into twin individual channels.
3. The apparatus of claim 1 further characterized in that the tube is straight.
4. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the heater tube is comprised of at least four lobes.
References Cited
UNITED STATES PATENTS
2,803,108 8/1957 Stoddard et al. 57 — 34 XR 2,864,229 12/1958 Seem et al. 57 — 34 2,869,312 1/1959 Van Dijk 57-34 2,891,375 6/1959 Van Damme et al. 57 — 34 3,289,400 12/1966 Scragg 57 — 34
FOREIGN PATENTS
824,942 12/1959 Great Britain.