Richard Irvin & Co. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Co., 219.
| Decision Date | 09 July 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 219.,219. |
| Citation | 121 F.2d 429 |
| Parties | RICHARD IRVIN & CO., Inc., v. WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Border Bowman, of New York City, for appellants.
Henry R. Ashton, of New York City (A. M. Wiggins, of Pittsburgh, Pa., of counsel), for appellees.
Before L. HAND and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
It is clear that the defendant does not infringe the only claim in suit, No. 10. In the first place the purpose of the only parts of the A. B. Brake which are alleged to infringe was quite different. Heiniger's pressure retaining valve was designed to keep pressure in the brake cylinder while pressure in the auxiliary reservoir was being built up. In the defendant's brake an emergency application — in which phase alone the A. B. Brake is supposed to infringe — results in emptying the brake pipe line at once, and the delay in exhausting the brake cylinder is not in order to give time to build up pressure in the auxiliary reservoir, but is only an incidental result of the fact that the air in the brake pipe line must build up a higher pressure than that in the auxiliary reservoir, which takes a considerable time. During part at any rate of that period, moreover, the pressure in the auxiliary reservoir, instead of being built up, is leaking into the brake pipe line. Coming next to the details of the claim, if the defendant infringes, the spring, 39, of the A. B. Brake must answer the description, "a spring normally moving the valve" (the "slide valve") "in a direction to close the triple valve exhaust." That spring does not and cannot move the "slide valve" at all, being purposely made too weak to do so. When the piston, 33, moves to the left, the member, 40, will abut upon the right end of the "slide valve" and compress the spring without moving the valve. In that phase the spring, 39, and the member, 40, are functionally parts of the piston and will hold it against the "slide valve" as a sort of abutment against small disturbing forces. After the piston has itself moved far enough to the left to abut upon the "slide valve" its further movement will move the "slide valve" with itself to the left, and in so doing will bring the vents of the auxiliary reservoir and the brake cylinder into register and the vents of the brake cylinder and the exhaust out of register. The spring, 39, has nothing whatever to do with that. It is true that when the piston moves to the right, the spring, 39, does...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
International Carbonic Eng. Co. v. Natural Carb. Prod.
...Electric Co., 9 Cir., 137 F.2d 722; Schnitzer v. California Corrugated Culvert Co., 9 Cir., 140 F.2d 275; Richard Irvin & Co. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Co., 2 Cir., 121 F.2d 429; Aero Spark Plug Co. v. B. G. Corp., 2 Cir., 130 F.2d We do not believe, however, that the Supreme Court of the U......
-
WF & John Barnes Co. v. International Harvester Co.
...___; Cover v. Schwartz, 2 Cir., 133 F.2d 541; Aero Spark Plug Co. v. B. G. Corp., 2 Cir., 130 F.2d 290; Richard Irvin & Co. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Co., 2 Cir., 121 F.2d 429. 1. Svenson 1,924,422, for a "Valve Construction," Issued August 29, 1933, on an Application. Filed November 16, 19......
-
Cover v. Schwartz
...in the court's discretion, see 11 Geo.Wash.L.Rev. 121, is now in a rather hopeless procedural mess. Compare Richard Irvin & Co. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Co., 2 Cir., 121 F.2d 429 (decision below reversed in part, since invalidity is moot upon a finding of non-infringement); Hazeltine Corp.......
-
Wabash Corp. v. Ross Electric Corp., 21
......, for plaintiff, Hartford National Bank & Trust Co. (Trustee). . Alexander C. ...Irvin v. Buick Motor Co., 8 Cir., 88 F.2d 947, 951; ...Thus, recently, in Bilofsky v. Westinghouse Elec. Sup. Co., 2 Cir., 1947, 160 F.2d 154, 39a ...Quinn, 5 Cir., 24 F.2d 42, 44; National Brake & Electric Co. v. Christensen, 7 Cir., 278 F. ... 55 See a related comment in Richard......