American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. v. Hoadley Brake Shoe Co.

• Decision Date: 01 March 1915
• Docket Number: 268.
• Parties: AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE & FOUNDRY CO. v. HOADLEY BRAKE SHOE CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

222 F. 327

AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE & FOUNDRY CO. v. HOADLEY BRAKE SHOE CO.

No. 268.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

March 1, 1915

Fish Richardson, Herrick & Neave, of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

Briesen & Knauth, of New York City, for defendant.

HALE District Judge.

This bill in equity alleges infringement, by the defendant, of United States letters patent No. 651,435, issued June 12 1900, for a railway brake shoe, to Gardiner W. Chipley, as patentee, and to Charles W. Armbrust, assignee of a one-half interest. The application of Chipley was filed January 18 1900.

Claims 4, 5, and 6 are in issue, the charge of infringement relating only to those claims. They are as follows:

'4. A brake shoe provided in its wearing face with recesses adapted to receive the attaching and guide lugs upon the back of another shoe, substantially as described.

'5. A brake shoe provided in its wearing face with recesses adapted to receive the guide and attaching lugs on the back of another shoe, and with means for securing the two shoes together, substantially as described.

'6. A brake shoe having its wearing face and its back formed in parallel planes, so that the back of one shoe will fit the face of another shoe, and provided in its wearing face with recesses adapted to receive the attaching and guide lugs upon the back of another shoe, substantially as described.'

Chipley describes two features of his invention. The first feature relates to the provision of a divided or two-part brake shoe, by which, he claims, certain advantages are attained. The second feature, concerning which this contention arises, relates to the provision of a brake shoe adapted to receive the back portion of a partially worn shoe, whereby brake shoes, partly worn out, may be used completely up, by attaching them to, and using them with, new shoes. In stating the advantages of the interlocking, interchangeable brake shoe, Chipley points out that all previous brake shoes, when worn down to a certain point, could be worn down no further without injury to the brake head; and so such brake shoe had to go to the scrap heap. Chipley testifies that he had frequently visited the scrap pile of the Rock Island road, and had there seen worn-out brake shoes. He had his attention called to the lack of economy in throwing away partially worn shoes, and tried to find a way to save this scrap by providing a brake-shoe construction which would enable a partially worn-out brake shoe to be attached to the face of a fresh shoe, and be completely worn out. To do this he brings together two counterpart shoes, an inner shoe attached to a brake head, and an outer shoe attached to the face of the inner shoe. To put the two shoes together, he provided lugs on the back for attaching the inner shoe to the brake head, and recesses on its face into which the lugs on the back of an exactly identical brake shoe fitted, by which the latter shoe could be attached to the face of the former shoe. The friction of braking the car wheel wore away the outer shoe entirely, and the inner shoe partially; then the inner worn shoe was removed from the brake head, a fresh shoe was attached to the brake head, the worn shoe was attached to the face of the fresh shoe, and the device was again put into use.

In his specification, Chipley points out substantially this method of using interlocking and interchangeable brake shoes. In a part of his specification he points out the advantages of the first feature of his invention relating to a divided or two-part brake shoe. In another part of his specification he describes the advantages of the second feature of his invention, with which feature we are now concerned. He alleges that this feature may be used with either the continuous or the divided shoe. He says:

'While I have illustrated and described in detail a simple and efficient method of attaching the worn shoes to the new ones by interlocking them together, my invention is not restricted in its broader scope to this particular method and means of attaching the old shoe to the new one, since, so far as I am aware, it has not heretofore been proposed to use up worn brake shoes by attaching them to new shoes in any manner whatsoever, and my invention therefore contemplates the employment of any suitable means for securing the old shoes to the new ones in the practical utilization of this idea.

'It will be understood that my invention has nothing to do with the particular construction of the body of the shoe-- i.e., whether of solid cast metal or otherwise-- or with the employment or nonemployment of 'inserts' in the wearing face of the shoe. Any of the various methods of constructing the body of the shoe and any of the usual inserts may be employed in connection with my invention without affecting the latter. It will also be understood that the second feature of my invention may be utilized in solid or continuous shoes, it being simply necessary for such purpose to provide suitable means for securing the old and new shoes together when assembled.'

He makes it clear that his invention consists in the assembling of two interlocking shoes. He briefly points out the method of assembling:

'In assembling the parts, each half of the worn shoe is applied to and interlocked with the corresponding half of the new shoe independently of the opposite halves of the shoes, and when each half of the combined shoe has been thus assembled the two halves of the combined shoe are brought together end to end, and then secured to the brake head.'

It will be seen that this description of assembling the two shoes necessarily involves interlocking half of a worn shoe with the corresponding half of a new shoe. The claims bring to the mind the picture of two shoes, the recesses of one shoe being adapted to receive the attaching and guide lugs upon the back of another shoe. Claim 6 distinctly expresses this feature; so that it is made clear that, if the patentee invented anything, it was the interlocking of two shoes identical in construction, and for the purpose described; and that he sought to do this either with divided shoes, or with continuous shoes. In his drawings he illustrates the two-part brake shoe, the first feature of his patent; in illustrating the second feature, he uses also the two-part brake shoe. He points out, however, that he intends his invention to be utilized either in the continuous shoe or in the divided shoe.

These defenses are relied upon by defendant: That Chipley's alleged invention was not new, in view of the prior art; that it was not useful, in that it was not operative, or capable of being put into use; that it has not been infringed by the defendant, for the reason that the patent should be so limited in its scope as to give the complainant the right to use only the divided brake shoe, whereas defendant's shoe is a continuous shoe; that, in any event, the patent is void, for the reason that the alleged patentee, Chipley, was not the original and sole inventor, but that one Armbrust was the inventor.

1. Chipley's alleged invention, described in his patent, is a brake shoe which can be completely worn out, by removing it from the brake head, when partially worn, substituting a fresh shoe on the brake head, and attaching the partially worn shoe to the face of the fresh shoe. The defendant has cited several patents, claimed to be anticipatory of this invention. A certain British patent to Rendall issued in 1898 discloses a brake shoe with a face made up of removable and replaceable dovetailed sections. I do not think it necessary to consider the Rendall patent in detail. In some of its suggestions, I think, it comes nearer to being an anticipation of Chipley than any other patent cited in the prior art. It does not, however, disclose counterpart, interlocking shoes, nor anything which, I think, can be held to be anticipatory of the thought which seems to have been clearly in the mind of Chipley.

The Brownley patent of July, 1888, discloses recesses, or grooves, in the face of the brake head; but these grooves are for an entirely different purpose from those...