American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. v. United States Brake Shoe Co.

Citation230 F. 621
Decision Date14 February 1916
Docket Number1974.
PartiesAMERICAN BRAKE SHOE & FOUNDRY CO. v. UNITED STATES BRAKE SHOE CO.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Charles P. Orr, Judge.

Suit in equity by the American Brake Shoe & Foundry Company against the United States Brake Shoe Company. Decree for defendant and complainant appeals. Reversed.

PATENTS 328-- VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT-- BRAKE SHOE.

The Gallagher patent, No. 651,031, for a brake shoe, claim 5, the gist of which is the reinforcement of the ductile metal lug of the prior Robischung patent by projections from the cast metal of the shoe, was not anticipated, is novel and useful and discloses invention; also held infringed.

Turning to the patent in suit, we find the patentee, in explanation of the nature of his alleged invention, uses the following language: 'I have found after much experiment that a back for a brake shoe may be made out of mild steel and formed in dies, so that the back and all the fastening devices for attaching the shoe to the brake head are in one piece, that this back may be attached to a cast iron wearing face in such a way that the cast iron of the wearing face will reinforce the lugs or other fastening devices, thus stiffening them and insuring against bending, and this shoe thus made may be worn down until the back itself is wholly worn away, even down to the brake head. While I have used mild steel in my experiments, and consider it the best metal to be used for this purpose, and shall use it in my description of the shoe it is obvious that any other metal that is capable of being formed in dies and has sufficient toughness or tenacity may be used in its stead. I refer especially to metals capable of being formed in dies, for the reason that, while other methods of making the back of this invention may be used--such, for instance, as making them out of malleable iron-- and such a back would, if the fastening devices were reinforced by a rigid metal, be within this invention, still I do not now consider such a back practical on account of its great expense.'

The only claim relied upon by the plaintiff is claim 5, which is as follows: '5. A brake shoe having one or more fastening devices to attach it to the brake head made of a ductile metal reinforced in their projecting portions by projections from the cast metal of the shoe, substantially as described.'

The following is the opinion of the District Court:

In this patent suit there is little difficulty in reaching a conclusion. The validity of United States patent No. 651,031 to J. D. Gallagher, under date of June 5th, 1900, for a brake shoe, is involved, as well as the question of infringement.

The function of brake shoes is to retard revolution of car wheels when pressed against them. Because of the needed friction, coarse cast iron is used in their construction. Because of the tendency of cast iron to fracture when subjected to heavy jars or blows, it has long been customary to cast the metal upon or around a plate or some other suitable piece of steel or wrought iron, which helps to form the back of the brake shoe, and at the same time has the function of preventing a substantial part of the cast metal, if it be fractured, from falling into a switch or frog of the railroad. The brake shoes are attached to the heads of the brake beam, and by the operation of the latter in some approved way bear against the surfaces of the wheels. As a means of attaching the brake shoes to the heads of the brake beams, lugs of various kinds have been made and used as an integral part of the brake shoes. If the lug were made wholly of cast iron, it would have a greater tendency to fracture than any other part of the shoe, because it is a comparatively small part of the brake shoe extending therefrom, and therefore liable to break when carelessly handled before keyed to the head, and because the key is driven in by a heavy hammer, thereby causing a strain at the top of the lug. It has therefore been customary to form the lug around steel or iron of some kind other than cast iron. Such other iron or steel in the lug has sometimes been of the same piece as that used in the back of the brake shoe, and has sometimes been of a separate piece, attached, however, to the other. In either case, however, the cast iron is under, around, and over the lug (except where the key is intended to enter), thus keeping the softer metal in proper shape, while the softer metal, on the other hand, keeps the cast iron free from fractures which would soon render the brake shoe useless.

It is urged that that claim is broad enough to cover a construction wherein the plate of ductile metal and the loop of ductile metal forming the lug are not of the same piece, but are separate pieces. A careful reading of the entire patent and a study of the drawings made part thereof, fails to reveal a suggestion that Gallagher intended to disclose what the plaintiff now relies upon. The plaintiff has never made lugs upon the brake shoes manufactured by it in accordance with the design of the patent in suit. The ductile metal used by the plaintiff in the construction of the backs and lugs of the brake shoes manufactured by it is in two separate pieces, the part used for the back being in the form of a plate cut from sheet metal, and the part used for the formation of the lug being bent around the plate and all reinforced by the cast iron forming the entire shoe.

The Gallagher patent in suit, if by any possibility it can be deemed valid, is limited to the integral construction of the ductile metal parts. But the Gallagher patent was anticipated by United States patent No. 495,269, to Robischung, under date of April 11, 1893, for a brake shoe. What has been heretofore called a plate of ductile metal is called by Robischung in his patent a skeleton on which the shoe is cast. This skeleton (line 65, page 1, of his patent) 'may be used conjointly with the lug B, or independent thereof, and may be integral with the lug (see Fig. 4), or otherwise connected therewith (see Fig. 6), as preferred. ' This is clearly a disclosure of all that appears in claim 5 of the patent in suit. There is no evidence in the case tending to show that the brake shoe of the patent in suit is better than the brake shoe of the Robischung patent. Indeed, the specific construction of neither is used to-day by either plaintiff or defendant. It is hard to understand how either of these patents could have been issued, unless it be that the Patent Office has not before it what is going on in the foundries and machine shops throughout the country. It is a matter of common knowledge that shapes of castings are infinite in their variety, and that, where strength is required in any part of a large or small casting, it has been customary to cast the iron around some other or different metal of selected quality and shape.

The bill must be dismissed, at plaintiff's costs. Let a decree be presented.

Frederick P. Fish, of Boston, Mass., and Paul Synnestvedt, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.

J. C. Sturgeon, of Erie., Pa., for appellee.

Before BUFFINGTON, McPHERSON, and WOOLLEY, Circuit Judges.

BUFFINGTON Circuit Judge.

In the bill in the suit before us, the American Brake Shoe & Foundry Company, the owners of patent No. 651,031, granted June 5, 1900, to Joseph D. Gallagher, for a brake shoe, charged the United States Brake Shoe Company with infringement thereof. On final hearing the court below held the patent invalid. From a decree dismissing the bill, the American Company took this appeal.

Gallagher's patent concerns brake shoes for cars and locomotives. The strains on such shoes in the heavy equipment of modern railroading are enormous, the proofs showing that they are forced against the wheel with as much as 20,000 pounds pressure, and the wheel drag on them is from 2,000 to 5,000 pounds. Cast iron has proved best adapted to meet this strain. Prior to Gallagher's device, the cast iron shoes in common use were cast with an integral cast iron lug. By means of a key passing through an opening in such lug, the shoe was attached to the brake beam.

The objections to a cast iron shoe are shown in the testimony. Speaking of the action of air brakes, a witness says:

'The shock to the brake shoe was such that it was very apt to break at the angle formed by the lug and the back of the shoe, that being always the weakest place in the casting, and it would also break when worn thin or worn half through; it was liable to break anywhere and the result of the break was that the broken portion, which wasn't attached to the break head, would fall onto the track, and might get into a frog, and repeatedly accidents happened.'

To increase the life of the shoe, chilling the cast iron was tried. This developed...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT