.l.'

·

''-_

';/

able; U they, ar!'f 'Of an The j)f the llew JlP:derriQ.pnill.g tr911ey system for the hut the idea p.fpivoiing the conta,ct arm, sup,po,rt, to which the sprilfg is alllQ attached, ratl1f111 to the car; 1p:ust have qeen of the ,1,)J!dinlil'Y wental equipment,of the skilled within, the with mechanic. A railroad turntable,i:qr;a rotating,o,:lDce a tension-.sP811g attachm. tell.tb,e inventor . hOW to make, .hisrotating sUPPor,'4, These are simply instances of the widespl'ead character of i pivQtedtqand rotating supports; and when Van'Depoele had adyanced 'to tIre' poip.t in his improvement where advance and make tQe' ,contact arm he said, freely rotate," the univerllality otmechanism of this sort ,made the mechanical task an easy one. It follows that the conclusions which Judge Townsend reached are confirmed, and that the bill should bp dismissed, with costs.
WESTINGHOUl:?E AIR-BRAKE CO. v. NEW YORK AIR-BRAKE CO. et at (Circuit Court, S.'D. New York. May 9, 18'J8.)
1. PATENTS..,.CON8'J)nu:cnON OF QJ,<AUIS-PRIOR ART.

The Dixon Plttent, 382,032, for ,tnlproveinents ,in ,alt brakes, which describes in, claims 3 of the prior Westinghouse ents and 376,837); co,nslstlng in dispensing with the passage pipe and and locally venting the traip. pipe from ,atn;losphere;, and, Ittqeseclaims areI\oi void for want pf , directly tp npvelty, they are yet technlpal, ratber tban valullc1')le, .'o;nes,and sbQuld not . ,: be extended by construction beYQo,d, their literal imporl
SAME.

2.

Tbe Westingbouse patent, No. 538,001, for improvements In alr brakes, construed, and held not In1frln.ged. ': " ' ' :

. This equitY.l>lJhe .WestlnghouseAir-Brake C6 IIl : pany ew York others for f!+: leged of f.or improvelllents in air brakes, George H.Christy for compla;inants. Fredk.
,,

W ALLAOE, ,Xhep/ltents wldc:\l this is founded .W(l! for· imprpv:em:ellts in 'akbrakes, .infringement 1egedofeIaims:3a:qd50fJettB,IiS patent No. 382,032, granted May ,1,1888, to Tberon. S.',E. Pix,QJa,apd !9fdaims 5 and 6; of lettersplJ.t; entNo. 538,OO!lj granted 23, r1895, to: Geo:rge, Westinghouse, .. The patent: ,of: ,Dixon, so far as it is fO\lnq in./the two claims in controversy, describes.a modification ot the autQmatic aip brake;ipf the prior to ,GeQrge Westinghouse, J;r.,NQs. 360,070 and 376,837, :whiclLUOllsistl;l. "inqutting off and with fQ.e sage fronI the and brake QyUnderj and locally venting tbe train pipe directly: to the atmosphere through a passage or porU' Westinghol,fseygnted his trainpipejntothe brake cylinder. (, Whatever: theoretical advantages may reside,iQ. the.. modification, the improvements have not been of sufficient value to displace the Westinghouse brake, and those which subject of the two claims are ·of no, cOIllUlerQial What was done by Dixon was to interrupt the passage in the West-

-I.

,

.

J

WESTINGHOUSE AIR-BRAKE CO. V. NEW YORK AIR-BHAKE CO.

883

inghouse brake, and is thus described by him in his specification: "I cut off and dispense with all communication between train pipe and the brake cylinder, and in lieu thereof provide an open air port, H, through which, when the local discharge is taking place, the air will vent from the train pipe directly." H is a passage opened by a quick-action vent valve, just as the passage in the Westinghouse brake is opened by his quick-action vent valve, viz. by the impact of the triple-valve piston at the extreme end of its traverse. As illustrated in the drawings, there is a poppet valve in the passage, H, which is pushed out of the way by the train-pipe air advent valve. mitted by the Dixon was not the first to effect a local discharge in automatic air brakes by venting them to the atmosphere, but he was the first to conceive the utility of doing so in the way in which he did it, and of modifying the organization of the Westinghouse brake to that extent. Local venting of train pipes was old in the air-brake art. It was perfectly well known that a quick serial application of the brakes throughout a train of cars could be effected in an automatic air-brake system by venting the train pipe at each car to the atmosphere. Westinghouse himself, in one of his earlier patents,-No. 217,838,-had pointed this out, and had devised a crude arrangement of devices to accomplish it. He concluded that it was desirable to vent the train pipe into the brake cylinder, and thus utilize the .ror, which would be wasted if vented to the atmosphere, to as· sil'lt.in charging the brake cylinder and actuating the brakes; and for this purpose devised the apparatus of No. 360,070, subsequently improved by the mechanism of No. 376,837. Dixon conceived that in aD. .apparatus the vent from the train pipe would not be as rapid or complete as it would be into the atmosphere, and accord· ingly modified the mechanism of the apparatus of Westinghouse. His change may have accelerated the serial brake action in emergency applications, but it did so at the expense of the advantage introduced. by Westinghouse of actuating the brakes in part by direct train pressure. In the Dixon air brake it is of the utmost importance that when the train-pipe vent has once been opened it shall promptly close after releasing a small quantity of the train-pipe air to the atmosphere, not only to prevent an unnecessary waste of air, but especially to enable the brakes to be released. As is stated by one of the expert witnelilses for the complainant, any organization which is not provided with means for doing this "would be a practically inoperative device; in. an a.utomatic air-brake system," and would be "a complete failure." The inventions specified in claims 3 and 5 do not include these means. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that any competent mechanic skilled in the air-brake art could easily. and without the of any inventive faculty, change the. Westin,ghouse brake of patents Nos. 360,07().. and 376,837. by. opemnga vent to the at,mospbere in the air passage from th,e train pipe to the brake cylinder, either by the method of Dixon or by other methods' equally avail. ,IP. of additio,n, of 11, 1888, to hIS Frencn patent of 'March 29, 1887, he shows how thIS can

884

I'

87 FEDERAL REPORTER.

, ·. ...

, ' i : ' ; ,',,; ,

be done by in the slide valve of No. 360,070. :H the claIms 11(lt',:v'oid for want of patentable novelty, the defendants are entitled toprevaif upon the issue 'of infringement. In any view of the facts, ,Dixon was not a pioneer, but was merely an improver upon the' ,pr,ior'me'chanism of Westinghouse, not alone for accomplishing the saine general result, but also for effecting the specific result of locally venting the train pipe, to the, open air in an automatic air brake. If the claims cover ihventions, they are tecbnical, rather than valuable, ones, and ought not to receive a of interpretation which will extend them beyond their litera] import. 'I'he claims themselves recognize the limitations imposed upon the scope of the patent by the prior art.' The specification contemplates the use of a piston socon$tructed as to have two strokes; and which moves through a a service application of the brakes, and a supplementary or final traverse tor ,an emergency application, and completes the service' a.pplication upon the primary traverse, and before entering upon its emergency traverse. This piston is an element of both claims. In the mechanism of the defelidllnts the piston has but one stroke, making a single traverse for both service and emergency application of the, brakes. which opens The third claim recites as one of its elements "a said passage when the,main piston opens the emergency port," viz. when GommunicaUon between the auxiliary reservoir and the brake cylinder is open." In the mechanism of ,the defendants the valve (71) tM.t ()pens the vent passage is opened at or near the first part of the of the triple-valve piston, and before any communicatioIJ. between the auxiliary reservoir and the brake cylinder is The train pipe is thereby vented to the atmosphere upon service applications as well aEl upon emergency applications, and at the pOlJ.lrp.encement of the operation of setting the, brakes. ' , as aconEltituent a vent valve which Is "operTp,efifth ated by the final' movement of the piston. B, when applying the brakes." Alii has been, said, the valve in the mech,anism of the defendants is not by the final movement of the piston. The piston lettered,B in the differs so materhlllyfrom the piston in the mechanism of the defendants that the latter has been milde the object of attack ill, the second patent insult, in which the claims were obviously pr¢parM for that express purpose. The'second patE!Iltin 538;0'01-,-is not infringed by the mechanism of t1;le unless' the claims are given a construction not warrf;lntedpy, the The application for that patent was' pending in the patent office when the defendant th,e New Air-Brake pompany sent to the complainant certain blue ,prints of the Ilir brake which it was about to manufacture ,an,d was manufacturing when this, s'!1it '\Vas brought. Thereafter the pending ,was amended by.inserting six new claim-so ,+'hepateut is, ,so far as these, Claims concerned, a transparent attewptto apprQp;riate a combiilll:tioti, of w;llicbMr.Mas,Eley was the i;nve'litor. . . .' .' ,c'., , ' : . ' ., ' , vah;e. is such as \s

ST. LOUIS CAR-COUPLER CO. V. NATIONAL MALLEABLE CASTINGS CO.

885

adapted to be used in conjunction with the well-known fQrmof triple valve in an air brake as au auxiliary means of venting the train pipe into the brake cylinder. It is arranged within a casing of the brnke cylinder, and is actuated by the triple valve. The clairiie"cannot be expanded to cover inventions not suggested by the specification. The bill is dismissed, with costs.

ST. LOUIS CAR-COUPLER CO.v. NATIONAL MALLEABLE
CASTINGS CO.

(Circult Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. No. 527.

March 8, 1898.)

1.

PATENTS-COMBINATiONS-IMPLICATION AS TO Er,EMENTS.

Where all the claims are for combinations only, this implies that all the rest is old, or, at least, that the patentee does not claim the elements separately. The granting of a subsequent patent for a similar machine or device affords a presumption of a patentable difference between the two.

2.

SAME-SUBSEQUEN1' PATENT-PRESUMPTION OF PA'rENTABLE DIFFEHENCE.

8.

SAME-PATENTABILI'I'Y OF COMBINATION.

To sustain a patent for a combination each element of which is old, considered separately, there must be some peculiar combination of these elements, producing new and useful results. The Lorraine and Aubin reissue, No. 10,941 (original, No. 369,195), for an automatic car coupler, which Is intended as an Improvement on couplers of the .Tanney or Master Gar Builders' type, is only sustalnable. If at all, by confining It to the precise form shown In the specifications and delineated In the drawings, and is not infringed by a coupler made in accordance with the Tower patent, No. 541,446. 81 Fed. 700, affirmed.

4.

SAME-AUTOMATIC CAR COUPLERS.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Ohio.
The complainant below and appellant here Is engaged In the manufacture and sale of an automatic car cou]Jler, generally known as the "St. Louis Coupler," and made under and in accordance with reissued patent No. 10,941, dated .Tune 26, 1888. The original patent was No. 369,195, dated August 30, 1887. Both the original and reissue were to Madison J. Lorraine and Charles T. Aubin. The object of the bill was to restrain an alleged infringement of said reissued patent by' the defendant company, which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of a rival car coupler, under a patent to C. A. Tower of June 18, 1895. and numbered 541,4-16. This patent is for an improvement on the patent issued to the same patentee, .Tu'ne 5, 1894, and that was an improvement on the patent Issued to the same patentee, October 24, 1893, No. 507,511. Upon a final hearing, before Taft, circuit judge, the bill of complainant was dismissed, upon the ground that the Tower device did not infringe the Lorraine and Aubin patent. The opinion of the circuit court is reported in 81 Fed. 706. The defenses were noninfringement, invalidity patent for want of novelty and patentable invention, and that the reissued, patent is void for unlawful extensions of the claims of the original patent. The character of the reissued patent to Lorraine and Aubin is thus stated in the specifications: "Our invention relates to that 'class of car couplings known as 'vertical plane,' and having a pivoted outwardly opening coupling head or clutch and an extended arm or buffer. The object of our invention is to provide a vertical plane coupling free from complicated parts, locking by means of a simple automatic gravity pin, reqUiring no adjusting and made in ,one pieCE!; to provide a vertical plan.e coupling in which, when a couplinghead. Is unlocked and, released, said coupling-head, by reaso;n of its own weight,