Brill v. North Jersey St. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 29 August 1903
• Citation: 124 F. 778
• Parties: BRILL v. NORTH JERSEY ST. RY. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

124 F. 778

BRILL v. NORTH JERSEY ST. RY. CO.

United States Circuit Court, D. New Jersey.

August 29, 1903

Francis Rawle, Joseph L. Levy, and Edmund Wetmore, for complainant.

Charles H. Duell and Fred P. Warfield, for defendant.

BRADFORD District Judge.

John A Brill has filed his bill of complaint against the North Jersey Street Railway Company, a corporation of New Jersey charging infringement of letters patent Nos. 627,898 and 627,900 and containing the usual prayers. These two patents the latter being divisional in its relation to the former bear date June 27, 1899, and granted to George M. Brill by whom they were, prior to the filing of the bill and the alleged infringement, assigned to the complainant, who has ever since continued the owner thereof. Both of them relate to improvements in pivotal trucks for electric street railway cars. The original application was filed July 3, 1897, and the divisional application November 9, 1897. The charge of infringement as to patent No. 627,898, which contains one hundred and eleven claims, has been restricted to claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 30, 32, 33, 80, 81, 87, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 102, 105, 107, 108 and 110. It is only necessary to consider claim 13. It is admitted on the part of the complainant that unless this suit can be maintained with respect to that claim it cannot be maintained as to any of the claims of patent No. 627,898. That claim is as follows:

'13. The combination in a car-truck, of the side frames, the semi-elliptic springs movably and resiliently suspended from the side frames, and a bolster secured to said springs, substantially as described.'

The truck mechanism which is alleged to infringe was manufactured by the Peckham Motor Truck & Wheel Company, a corporation of New York, and was and is used by the defendant. If the above claim be valid, I am satisfied that the defendant must, on the evidence, be held liable as an infringer. The controlling question as to patent No. 627,898 relates to its validity. The combination of claim 13 is 'substantially as described' and that claim must be read in the light of the description in order that its real meaning and scope may be understood. When so read it essentially resembles claim 10 which is as follows:

'10. The combination in a car-truck, of the truck-frame, spring-links depending from the truck-frame, semi-elliptic springs connecting the links, and means for connecting said latter springs with a car-body, substantially as described.'

The gist of the invention of this patent principally lies in the construction and arrangement of a flexible spring connection between the truck-frame and the car-bolster, so adjusted as to provide relatively to the truck-frame a vertical spring movement, and also a longitudinal and transverse yielding horizontal movement, of the bolster supporting the car-body thereby relieving the car-body from shock, jerk or jar in the staring or stopping of the car or in its passage over inequalities or curves in the rails or track. The defence of anticipation has been set up as to this patent and was urged at the hearing; but I have failed to find any anticipation of claim 13 or, indeed, of any other of its claims in suit. The prior art is also relied on by the defendant to negative patentability in the invention described and claimed, and many patents and other exhibits have been produced in evidence in support of its contention. There can be no doubt that in a broad sense all the elements entering into the combination of claim 13 were old and well known. At the time the invention embodied in that claim was conceived there was, generally speaking, nothing patentable in such spring-links, semi-elliptic springs, or other elements, separately considered, as entered into the combination claimed. But the several elements, though old, were so adjusted and combined in the mechanism covered by the claim as to co-operate in producing a joint result which could not be obtained from a mere aggregation or assemblage of the different elements. By way of illustration, the spiral springs in the supporting links and the semi-elliptic springs are so associated that the action of the former is modified by that of the latter, and conversely, the action of the latter by that of the former. Claim 13 covers a true combination in contradistinction to a mere aggregation or assemblage. The question remains whether such combination was patentable at the time of the invention. On this point much may be said on either side. I was much impressed at the hearing with the force of the defendant's contention. But it should be borne in mind that what may seem obvious in an invention after it has been reduced to practice must first be found out or discovered in order that its simplicity may be appreciated. The fact that an invention constitutes an important and desirable improvement in an art, in the development of which many inventors have participated without making such improvement, affords persuasive evidence of patentability. Especially is this true where the improvement relates to matters of such importance and widespread interest as...