PULLMAN'S PALAcE CAR co.
v.
195
recil?rocating plunger L,". on::' :tuvlew Of the pnor artlln<Hbe explimtlanguageoHhe claIm It IS thOl1ght th!lt such a loose interpretation is not permissible,. and that the court would as esselltiaI to not be justified in omitting features the combination. But if the claim were so construed it would then be .broad Some of the prior so would be It follows. t,b.,at the bill must
PULLMANts PALACE CAR: Co.' fl. BOSTON "
Co.
et al.
(OtrC1.dt Oourt, D.Massachusett8· . October 9, 1890.) . ,
"
1.
PATENTS FOR INYENTION-VESTmULE b.Ut-CONNEO'tIONs-NOVELTY.
to
The object of the invention for which letters patent No. 403,137, were granted to George M. Pullman, May 14, 1889, was to provide a continuous conneotion, between the contiguous ends of passenger cars, consisting. of an inclosed passageway on the end ofea,ch c\lr, the solid parts being conneoted by a 100l\e joint, or ..bUffer, made of some flexible material so constrUcted as to accommodate itself to the movement of .eaehcar, and yet. restrained from moving sidewise 80 as to obstruct the passag.e.way, a.nd fOrming.' at all times) ac.omPlete vestibule con.nection. Tile invention possessed great advantages over toe old open platform cars. rrhere had been no priorlutempts to construot a vestibule train having the motions and . restraint of motions of the patent-Some prior experiments in the construction of vestibule cars had been:abandoned,and, in others, the object of the vestibule had been for purposes of ventilation or to diminish the resistance of the atmosphere t<> the passage of B.eld, that the patent was not void for want of novelty. I:JAME-ANTICIPATIO:N'.
..' .
'
8. SAME.
4. SAME-INFRINGEMENT.
In the Pullman:patent, an areh"platewas to be so secured to the buffer-plate as w be capable of the same motions and restraint of motions as the latter; and, inths preferred construotion, it was riveted to the buft'er·plate. Held, that a structure 1D which the only iJIlportant diJference from the pullman patent was that the arebplate was hlnBed to the bu1fer plate was an infringement of the Pullman patent.
196
J'EDERAL REPORTER,
vol. 44.
OIw:lJ/Me!} Smith, ahnrle8 K. Offield, .Frederick P. Fish and Wilmarth H. Th:urBtcm, for complainant. George PaY80n and ChUBten Brmone, for defendants.
In Equity.
COLT, J. The bill in this case alleges infringement of letters patent No. 403,137, granted May 14, 1889, to George M. Pullman, for a new and useful improvement in solid vestibule connections between railroad cars. The description and object of the Pullman invention is carefully set out in his patent. The specification says: "The object of my inv,ehtion is to provide suitable means whereby there may be made a continuous connection between contiguous ends of passenger rail way cars, this connection being an entirely closed passage-way, preferably oNhe width of the car platforms, and serVing at the same time as a vestibule for entrance and exit to the respective ends of the cars. the connection between the solid parts forming a vestibule being made of flexible or adjustable material, so as to constitute a loose or flexible joint that will permit of sufficient movement of each unit car in travel, but at all times preserving a complete vestibule connection between respective cars. '" '" '" The problem is to hold each bellows so firmly to its car that it will maintain its place when the car is uncoupled from others; second. to so support them that when cars are coupled the ends of adjoining bellows or connections take their relati ve proper positions. so as to form a continuous passage without any necessity of manipulating the bellows or flexible connections; third. to provide a continuous flooring between the cars; fourth, so to combine the parts that both the flexible connections and the flooring shall be 80 supported that the cars may approach nearer and remove further from each other without disturbing either the continuity of the flooring or that of the bellows or inclosed flexible passageway; jif'th, that the cars may, as in traveling around curves they must, have the longitudinal line passing through the center of one car at an angle with that passing through the center of another car without disturbing the continuity of the foot-passage, or causing open spaces between the ends of adjoining flexible passage-ways." The patent fir8t describes what is culled a "vestibule," which is formed by inclosing the platform, except at the end, by means of a roof and doors; and, seccmd, a vestibule connection which COilsists of an arch or and a bellows-like structure attached at one edge to the archplate, and at the other to the outer end of the vestibule. As cars in a moving train increase and decrease their distances with respect to other, and also change their angles with reference to each other when rounding curves, it follows, that, in order to make a fairly tight joint between the connections of opposite cars, the bellows must be extensible a.nd capable of being shut up on one side, while they are opened on the other, and that the face or arch plate, to which these bellows are attached, must be capable of traveling in and out from the end of the car, and also of turning, as it were, on a vertical axis, so that its two edges can occupy either tpe saine or different distances from the end of the car. It is also necessary that the face-plate shall be restrained from moving bodUysidewise when runnin,g on a curve, because,aa a result,the pas-
FULLMAN'S PALAOE OAR CO. V. BOSTON & A. R. R. CO.
197
might be obstructed. It is these motions and restraint of n1Otion whioh constitute the essence of the Pullman invention. The patent states: "It [the arcb-plate]can move in and out from the platform, it can oscillate, and neveltheless a vertical line drawn through its center will always practically be in a vertical plane passed longitudinally through the center of the car, and it must be supported either from the buffer-bar or by other means of the same character, so as to be capable of thus moving." To the arch-plate is secured the buffer-plate, and the patent states that it has the S!1me motions, and is restrained in the same manner, as the arch-plate. The patent further says: "Thisbuffer-pJate on one car could TIot have its acting-face coincident with a similar buffer-plate onan adjoining cal' when the two cars are a curve, unless it could change its angle with reference to a longitndinalline passing through the center of the car, so that it can be at times at right anglesto such a lir.eand at times at various other anglps. The support of the buffer-bar, lJefore described, not only pprmits these changes of angular posP tions, and the in-and-out motions.of t,he buffer-bar, but pre\"entgits centpr froID leaving a horizontal longitudinal line through the center of the car to which it is attached, so that the center of the buffer-bar is always, whether projected or shoved in, practically in line with the center or middle of the platform. The mode of supporting this buffer-bar must be such as to permit it to have these motions so long as the buffer-bar is permitted to move as d6-' scrilJed, and, at the same time, have its center restrained, so that it can move only in a certain path, as before described." In the form of the Pullman invention described in his patent, thE) arch-plate is riveted to the buffer-plate, and the buffer-plate is mounte<l upon a spring-extended buffer-rod. Upon this rod is mounted a crossbar,or equalizing bar, in such manner that it can move out and in witji the and at the same time oscillate upon its center. Two rodll are attacned to the ends of this cross-bar, not firmly, but by a sort ball and socket joint, in such manner that the cross-bar may change its angles'to h()rizontal1ines drawn perpendicular to the length of the· car; while the rods always' remain substantially parallel with the sides of thE! car. These rods pass through mortises, or guide-plates, made in or ported by the transverse timbers of the car, and are thus confined ill such manner that they can slide outward and inward in the direction of their length, but cannot practically move in any other direction. These' rodsat their outer ends project beyond the outer cross-beam of the car, and are there pivoted to the buffer-plate. This mechanism permits the forward-and-back and oscillating motions, and prevents any lateral motion, as before described. The first claim of the patent is as follows: "(I) The combination, substantially, as hereinbefore set forth, of a faceplate forming the open ends of a vestibule-extension to a railway-car when not coupled with another car in a train, and a buffer-plate which is pivotally connected with a spring-extended buffer-rod, and arranged, as described, to be capable of oscillating .on a fixed center, but restrained by guide-rods, as described, to compel its center of oscillation to move only in a line passing longitudinally and horizontally through the center of the car, the said bufferplate and the face-plate of the vestibule connected therewith being free to move angularly with such fixed longitudinal line of their movement."
198
, " FEDEltAL REPOR'J,'Ejl,
yolo 44.
The second claim is for the combination of the elements of tM first claim with the threshold, or when all three have tl;:le motions and are restrained as described. The third claim is not iri'controversy. The fourth claim is for the combination of the arch-plate. and. flexible connection, when the arch-plate has the motions and is restrained as dE}scribed. The fifth chim is for the combination of a car-body extension, which incloses the platform, and is providerl with doors, bellows-like connection made of flexible material, face-plate, and foot-plate, when the face-plate and foot-plate have the motions and are restrained as described. The first ground of defense I shall consider is that the Pullman patent is void for want of novelty in view of the prior state of the art. It appears 'by the record, that Pullman ran his first vestibule train early in between Chicago and Jersey City, on the Pennsylvania Railroad, and that, in December, 1889, these cars had been placed upon sixty-one railroads of the United States, representing a mileage of more than 91,000 miles. Of the great advantages of the vestibule system over the old open platform cars, both in respect to the safety and convenience of passengers, there can be no doubt. Where a patented improvement possesses marked utility, and has so speedily and universally come into public use, the court should hesitate to the patent invalid for want of novelty, because these circumstances tend strongly to prove iD\Tentlonl The railroad passenger traffic of the country is immense, the dangers incident to the open platform connection between cars are well known, and the fact that an inventor has succeeded in overcoming thif;l danger to human life, and at the same time has materially increased the comfort of railway travel, should not escape the mind of the court in dealing with the question of invention. Considering the amount of thought in the .country directed toward improvements in railway mechanism, wherE}by greater safety and comfort may be secured to the traveling public, it hardly seems possible that the Pullman vestibule system, in view of what it has accomplished, and the immediate recognition of its merits, was the result of the exercise merely of mechanical skill, anel, therefore, not patentable under the laws of the United States. Assnming that Pullman, and not Sessions, (a question to be presently considered,) was the inventor of that which is new and useful in the Pullman patent, I do not think it can be seriously questioned that the combinations covered by the first, second, fourth, and fifth claims of the patent are not found in the prior art. The prior attempts, so far as such attempts had been made to construct a vestibule train, had proved failures, or nearly so; at lea&t, I find no prior attempt to construct a solid vestibule train having the motions and restraint of motion which are the prominent features of the Pullman patent. Some of the prior experiments in the construction of vestibule cars appear to have been abandoned. In other cases, the main object of the vestibule seems to hllve been for purposes of ventilation, or to obviate the loss of power which is caused by the space or break in the general line of cars caused by the atmosphere acting on the end of each car, rather than in securing a continuous passagE}way and between the cars. The problem which
PULLMAN'S PALACE CAR CO.
1i.
BOSTON &A. R. R. CO.
199
man undertook to solve was first shown in his patent. Under these circumstances, I do not deem it necessary to consider all the prior patents which are introduced as anticipations, to a greater or less extent. of Pullman, but it will be sufficient to referto those which are mainly relied upon. In the English Bessemer patent of 1846, the patentee defines his invention, and states that its purpose is to diminish the resistance opposed to the transit of the cars by the atmosphere. To do this, he incloses the space petween the carriages with a hood similar to that of the hooded chaise, or; instead thereof, he forms a fixed hood, or projection, of wood Or other rigid material, which projects so far as the ends of the buffer-stocks, and forms externally a continuation of the carriage body. I find nowhere in the Bessemer patent the arch-plate of Pullman, so supported as to have the motions and restraint of motion described in the claims of his patent. And this same observation may be made respecting the English Chidley patent of 1865, and the Smith patent of October 24, 1882. Much stress seems to be placed by the defendants upon the Atwood patent of July 10, 1855. It is true that, for several years prior to 1860, cars with the Atwood equipment were run upon the Nauga:tuck Railroad, in Connecticut. The patent was for an improvement in ventilating cars. Atwood describes in his patent a flexible collnectionattached to each end' of each ear, and, therefore, the cars had a kind of vestibule connection, but the flexible connections of the Atwood patent are not supported by any rods like those of Pullman, are not restrained from any lateral motion. In other words, I and dQnot.filld in the .Atwood device those motions and motion which lie at the basis of the Pullman invention. Leaving out the Sessions patent, I can discover nothing in the .prior state of the art which anticipates the Pullman patent, or which should render it void for want of patentable novelty. I now come to the most serious defense to this suit.. It is said that the patent granted to H. H. Sessions, November 15, 1887, describes wbat is now claimed as the Pullman invention. In other word,S, that, if you take the Sessions out of the Pullman patent, it becomes void for want of patentable novelty, or, at most, it must be so limited in its scope that the defendants do not infringe in. the use of their present apparatus. To express the proposition in another form, the deiimdIlntscontend that the oscillalion of the car about a fixed center, or the so-called "motions!', and" restraint of motion," which are made the prin" cipal- features of the Pullman patent, are found in Sessions's, and that the additions of a vestibule character which Pullman made, such as attaehingthe' bellows-like structure to the end oithe car, do not constitute a patentable difference from Sessi0I!-s's, because this feature is found in the old Atwood patent; and that, therefore, the Pullman patent is void· for want of invention. It is admitted that Pullman may have improved the vestibule connection between cars, and that this was his only object; but that uU beyond. that which is found in his patent was the invention of Sessions. Seesions. is general manager of the Pullman COlupany; at Pullm.an, ID. Reapplied for his patent April 29,1887, two weeks be-
of
200
FEDERAL REPORTER,
fore the Pullman application, which was filed May 13, 1887. The fact that these applications were filed about the same time go to prove that Sessions thought that he had invented something, and that Pullman believed he had invented something. Let us turn now to the Sessions patent and see what was his invention. The patent is for an improvement in the construction of railroad cars. The specification says: "The in ven tion hereinafter particularly described is ern bodied in the application to theindi vidual cars, which when coupled wiII compose a train, of a frame-shaped plate arranged in a vertical plane parallel with a vl'rtical transverse plane passing through the car-body and projecting, by means of backing-springs, fOl' a short distance beyond the end of the car. The height Of said frame-plate for the best results should be suustantially that of the height of the car to which it is attached, and the same should ue so shaped as 'to allow a free communication between the ends of adjacent cars for the passage of persons through such frame-plates." Sessions then states the purpose of his invention as follows: "The purpose of the improvement is twofold,-lirst, to diminish the racking effect upon a car-body, due to its momentum when it is suddenly brought trom a state of motion to a state of rest from any cause, as well as the same injurious consequences when a car is sUddpnly started from a state of rest, and, secondly, to diminish the tendency to a swaying or oscillating movement which is developed whenever a train is running at high speed upon an ordinary railroad track. I have illustrated my improvement in the drawings by exhibiting the same in connection with another improvement in car Gonstruction, which consists of a vestibule attachment to the ends of railroad cars for the purpose of completely inrJosing the sides of the car platform and allowing of a continuous inclosed aisle or passage-way between the adjacent ends of the coupled cars of a train. This vestibule feature is no part of the present invention. * ... * So much of the drawings as represent the arrangement and construction of a vestibule attachment are not illustrative of any inventionset forth in this patent, except as the same show, in comuination therewith, the impwvement hereinaftflr specifically described. * * * What I cJaim as my invention, and desire to secure by letters patent, is: 1. The combination, with the end of a railway car, of a frame-plate or eq\1ivalent series of buffers backed by springs, arranged with its face in a vprtical plane and normally projecting beyond the end of the car, whereby, upon the coupling of two cars, a spring-buffer will be interposed the superstructures of such adjacent cars above their platforms, and also frictional surfaces under opposing spring pressures to prevent the racking of the car-frames upon sudden stoppages and to oppose the tendency of the car to sway laterally when in motion, substantially as hereinhefore set forth. 2. The combination of a spring-buffer, or friction-plate, with the ends of each of thfl adjacent cars.of a train, said buffers being located on the ends of the superstructures of the cars, respectively, and substantially at the tops of the same, and so arranged that when the two cars are coupled the faces of the buffers will bear against each other in contact under pressure, substantially as and for the purposes specified." To make a perfect vestibule connection between cars, it appears neoessar)' to use both the inventions of Pullman and Sessions. But Sessions addressed himself to the solution of one problem, and Pullman. another. Each undertook to overcome certain difficulties, and each obtained a patent for the means by which they reached a successful result. The problem Sessions set out to solve was to diminish certain eyile
PULLMAN'S PAJ,ACB CAR CO. V. BOS'I'ON & A. R. R. CO
201
dent to a train of ears ,-namely, to the starting and stopping of them, and to a swaying which arises under certain conditions when the cars are moving,-and he accomplishes this, in the language of his first or equivalent series of buffers backed by claim, by a springs." It is the spring-buffer or friction-plate located at the end and substantially at the top of each adjacent car of a train, and so arranged that when two cars ate coupled together the buffers will bear against each other under pressure, which constitutes the invention of Sessions. In the friction produced by the contact of heavy face-plates, or buffers; under pressure, Sessions solved the problem he undertook of minishing the racking effect upon the car-frame when the car is suddenly started or stopped, and the swaying movement which is developed wheri the car is running at high speed. This is all he claims in his patent to have done, and all he swears he did do. On the other hand, what man undertook to do Was to overcome the difficulties incident to a vesti:. bule connection cars, and he accomplished this by means ·0£ "flexible or adjustable joints to permit of sufficient movement between individual passenger-cars," which he declares is the im'ention he desires to protect by letters patent. Much reliance is placed by the defendants on the fact that the drawings in the two patents are nearly identical, and from this it is inferred that the ac1justable joints, or equalizing mechanism, of the Pullman patent was really the invention of Sessions, and that it is found in his patent. It must here be borne in mind that these two inventors were working ·together, and that both their applications tur patents w.ere filed within a few days of each other. But,more important than this, the Sessions drawings must be read in connection with his specification; and, in his specification; he declares that his improveis exhibited in connection with another ment, as shown in the impro,vementin cll:rconstruction, and that the vestibule feature is no part o(his invention. Upon the questions whether the drawings or the Sessions patents show the equalizing mechanism of Pullman, the eminent expert!! employed on each side of the case differ. The only of the specification throwing light on this point is as follows: "The spring pressUre to act against the lower portion of the frame-plates is obtained, as exhibited-in t!Je draWings. from the coiled spring m, which takes a bearing at one end, IIgainst the solid frame-work of the car, and at other end against a cross-head beneath the entrance-platform car, which cross-head,· by means. of the rigid links, S s', is connected with the threshold of the frame-plate a, tbe said links or bars,8s'. being knuckle-jointed to the threshold-plate 0." It is urged by the 4,efendants that it would be useless to have these links or rods jointed to the threshold-plate, unless they were also loosely C011nected with an oscillating spring buffer-ba:r, such as is described in the Pullman patent. But, however this may Sessions does not describe rods so bonnected, or ·make any mention. of an oscillatingequlllizing bar. To incorporate these features ipto the Sessions patent must be done by plication,and in defiance of the testimony of Sessions in this suit as to what he invented and what he did not invent. If he were the first inventor of
202
this equalizing mechanism in combination with the spring-buffers, itis remarkable that he did not set it out in his specification, and include it in his claims. It is further urged by the defendants that the Sessions springbuffers would imperfectly, especially in rounding curves, without the equalizing bar and the rods hung loosely or jointed at their ends. Upon this question, also the experts differ. Where persons so skilled in the construction of mechanical devices as the witnesses in this case disagree, iUs not strange that the court should hesitate to decide all the questions relating to frictional contact or the laws of motion which are raised by the record. rIhe safer course to pursue, I think, is to take each patent as it stands, and give to each inventor no more and no less than what he describes and Claims as his invention. It is further urKed in defense that Sessions did not describe the equalizing mechanism as a part of his invention, ,because it was old in the art at that time, it being the addition to his spring-buffers of the well-known Janney carbuffer, patented May 13, 1879. But the answer to this is, thl\t if Sessions were the inventor of the modified such as is found in the Pullman patent, in combination with his face-plate, why did he ,not claim to be such inventor, and set it out in his specification? Instead of this, he swears that Pullman first suggested the application of the Janney ,buffer to vestibule cars. As bearing upon what Sessions invented, let us briefly examine his testimony in this suit. ;Sessions says: , "Mr.' Pullman showed me'drawings of the vestibule, and claimed it a8 his invention, which was practically as shown in his patent, except that he did not have 11 heavy ,iron face-plate backed with springs. When I asked Mr. Pullman about vestibule, Sl!to the means he purposed using for holding tbetlexible c,onnections from the car, he said that he was to use a wooden frame. , Itwas then lpropose!l tomodify my former device [f.e., roof.buffer] apply it' to this vestibule. "' I used an iron face-plnte with topbuffer stems and on the suggestion of President Pullman, I COInbined the Janney buffers with a single buffer-bar or face-plate. * * * Mr told, me he was going to build 6pme solid trains. I ,didn't know what he meant by · solid He to myself, and to others, in my ollice, using. as near as I can recollect, these words: 'I want the cars to inclosed passage W"<tys. and to be connected together;' so that, instead of speaking 'of C'clfS, he wanted them as one long flexible car. I asked him; how ,he purposed to arrange his platforms so he could maintain the' integrity of ·tbl\tlong trainwhenroullding sharp cu'rves. He then used the term, a 'flexible eorinection; ** '" Int. It appears, then, that the device, as abtual1yinvented'byyou alone, never came into use? An,. When in combination with the hottom buffer-plate it went into use. bat. That is to 8ay, ,aftt-ryou had madll the additional so-called invention, suggested by Mr. Pullman, then the thing lbecame practical and' went into general' Use? Ana. Yes,8b"." ";, '
clearly limits his inyentiQn to the heavy iron face-plates backed by springs, or, in othe)' words, to exactly the descriptlQn.COQtained in the specification of his patent. Suit, Wll,8 brought in upon the intbecircuit court for the. northern disIllio.ois J andtbe patent WSl! PuUman Palace Car Co.",.
PULLMAN'S PALACE CAR CO. V. BOSTON &tA. R. R, CO,
:tha,tcase by' stipulation is made 3. part oftMs rOODrd. Itis said that'the depositiol\ of Sessions in that ease, as to the scope of his invention; is somewhat in conflict with his present position; It is true that Sessions there tE:stifies that his buffer is attached to a Janney buffer as modified, but he nOWhere suys that he Wll.S the inventor of, this feature, and he now directly and positively swears that this was suggested by Pullman. As to the tion which the learned coullselfor the complainant in that case took before the court, respecting the proper interpretation to be given to the Sessions' patent; I do not Bee what it has to do with this case, but, admitting that it may have a hearing, I.can detect no serions inconsistency in the grounds then urged to sustain the Sessions patent and those now brought forward by the complainant. Prima fncie a patent is good. It is for the defendants to make out in this case that Sessions was the inventor of the Pullman invention.. '. Here is a most meritorious invention, and the credit is due to one or the other. I cannot upon a comparison of the two patents, taken in connection with the evidence Of hold him to be the prior inventor. It seems to me it would be an act ofin,justice for the court by inference to incorporate the Pullman inven., tion into the Sessions patent, and thus prevent both inventors from de· ri\7ing any benefit horn this improvement; because it is manifest that,' if w,edestroy the· patent; Sessions can derive no benefit from the PUllman invention, because he nowhere describes or claims it in his patent. The proceedings in the patent-office are brought forward by defendants, as tending to prove priority of invention in Sessions. It il' true that the Pullman patent was not grarited until May 14, 1889,....... two years after the application was filed. It is also true that the application was r£'jected mainlv on reference tathe prior Atwood and Seg.;. sions:patents. The originai specificlltion and claims were, in great part t rewritten, ,Pullman disclaiming linything contained in the Sessions patent In his affidavit of April i, 1889, forwarded to the patent-uffice, Pullman states that he completed his invention prior to the date of the filing of the Sessions application. The point is consequently made by the defEmdants that Pullman fl.illilly obtained his patent because the' patent-office believed that his invention was plioI' to Sessions's, and not thaUt embraced anything outside of Sessions's. In the sence"of record proof, the coin"!! has no right to assume that the patent was 'issued on this affidavit or for this particular reason. The ground taken 'by' the patent-office in finnHy granting this patent does notappear, but it does appear by this record that Sessions swears that what Pull·' man said in his affidavit as to his invention was true in poUlt of fact: The statutes of the United States-provide how a patent may be obtained.; Where the cll1imsof a patent are r£'jected, in whole or in part, it is the duty: of:the commillSionl'r to uotilythe applicant, in orHer to enable: hinl',if he desires, to make his description and specification of claims' more specifio and . precise. The PuHman application took the usual' course" and' the patent'WftB granted. ,There' is nothing in the patent' as allowed that 'was not contained in the original application. Theattucti
Wt.gn,t:Pilla06carCo., 88 Fed. Rep. 416. The record
in
204
FEDERAl, REPORTER,
vol. 4"1.
ure described is the same. Inventors work more (lr Jess in the dark. ':fhey may not know in the beginning how well they have built. Pullman may not have realized at first about the motions and restraint of motion necetlsary to a solid vestibule train. But he did describe in his original application, and showed in his drawings, an apparatus which produced these results. He knew what. that apparatus was, and he knew it worked successfully, since he had already built and run a train of cars so equipped. The fact. that, in its progress through the patentoffice, the specification and claims of the patent were made more clear and accurate, so as to express his actual invention, affords no reason for casting doubts upon the validity of his patent. , The question of infringement alone remains. Upon the construction IJ.ow given by the court to the Pullman patent, I have no d,oupt that the structure used by the defendants is within the patent. The defendants hinge the arch-plate to the buffer-plate. This is the only important dif., in the two structures. If the hinges in the defendants' model were pinned fast, and the latches on top of the arch-plate removed, you would have the construction mentioned in the patent in which tnearchplate, the buffer-plate, and the foot-plate are all mounted so as to have the, same motions, and be restrained to the same line of centra;lmotion. The arch-plate, the patent states, is to be firmly attached to the buffer-, pll1te, and in the preferred construction it is riveted to the buffer-plate. The l1efendants seek to avoid infringement by hinging the arch-plate to the.ouffer:The patent defines, what is meant by "firmly attached," because it states thl1t the arch-plate is so secured as to be capable of the same motions, and restraint of motion, as the buffer-plate. Any fastening, therefore, which is secure enough to obtain these results comes within the patent. It is clear also from the language of the specification that the patentee does not confine himself to the precise means shown in the drawings for supporting the arch-plate, foot.,plate, and buffer-plate, but that various means may be employed for that purpose, so long as these parts have the motions before referred to, and are restrained centrally. The structure of the defendants may not work perfectly, but it contains the substance of the Pullman invention as set out in claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 of his patent. In defendants' car there is a face-· plate, fonning the open end of a vestibule connection when not coupled with another car, and a buffer-plate, both being pivotally connected with a spring-extended buffer-rod, and both having the motions, and restraint of motion, set forth in the patent, and it is, therefore, within the· first claim. of the patent. It has also the threshold, or foot-plate, combined with the arch-plate and buffer-plate, so as to have the motion and he restrained in the same manner; and it is, therefore, within the second claim of the patent. It has also the bellows.,like connection when com., bined with other elements, so as to produce the same results, and it is, within the fourth claim of the patent. It has a vesti1;J:uleprov.ided. with doors at the sides, in addition to the other elem,ents contained in, the .fifth claim of the patent, and it, therefore, infriJ,lg{:js, that' claim.· .be drawn for complainant,a8 prayed Jor il
J'IRMAN fl. NEW HAVEN CLOCK 00.
205
FmMAN et al.
fl.
NEW HAVEN CLOCK Co.
(ctrcutt Coun, D. ConnecUcut. December 5, 1890.) P.A.'l'Illft'S
Claim 5 of letters patent No. 192.644, granted July 8, 1877, to Leroy B. Firman for improvements in automatic signaling apparatus, is for "the combination, with a call writing wheel, of a signal writing wlleel, moved by the same power, when the latter is provided with a number of equal spaced teeth, which write the signal de' sired by making a cenain number of equal spaced Impulses." Two wheels acting in operated by I6parate acts of the user, and a single wheel, which made In succession the two impulses, had been previously known. ReW, that the claim must bll limited to the mechanism substantially as described therein, and was not infringed by an apparatus in which two wheels coacted to produce !Po sim· Uar ,reSUlt, one producing the impulses, and the other determining which of the impulses should be transmitted.
INVENTIONS-SIGNALING ApPARATUS-INlI'RINGEMENT.
In Equity. George P. Barton and Wm. Edgar Simond8, for plaintiffs. Harry M.Turk and Arthur V. Briesen, for defendant. SHIPMAN, J. This is a bill in equity to prevent the alleged infringe. ment of .fifth,claim of letters patent No. 192,644, dated July 3, 1877, granted to Leroy B. Firman for improvements in al;ltomatic sig, naling used in the system known the "district telegraph system," in which "each station is designated by a number, and the apparatus is constructed to write that number as a 'call,' and subsequently to write anyone oheveral signals, at the will of the operator." The appaia,tus was an improvement upon the device described in letters. patent No. 185,455 to G. S. Ladd and S. D. Field, which contained, one circuit breaking wheel, described by one of the experts for the plaintiff as follows:', set of teeth or notches upon its rim, extending partly "Having a around, so as to give a station number or call, the remaining portion of the rim being divided into teeth, placed at regular intervals apart, so that they will cause a series of equal spaced dots upon the paper of the register at the receiving station, amounting altogether to one more than the number of special signals provided tor."
A movable plate, with enough to cover two teeth,. is placed against' one side cf the wheel, and thus a dash is formed, instead of two dots, when these teeth pass the contact point. Any two adjacent teeth may thus be combined, and the special signal depends upon where the dash is formed. The operator determines the special signal by observing which two dots are united to form a dash. The patentee divided this single wheel into two wheels. Upon part of the rim of one wheel there were the unequally spaced notches, which designated the call, the remaining portion of the rim being without teeth, and connected with a segment of a cog.wheel, and Upon .part of the rim of the other wheel were equally spaced notches) which' designated the special signal. The second wheel isprought into action after the call, which has finished its work. It is connected with another segmllntof a cog-wheel, the teeth