Boydenco v. Westinghouse Westinghouse v. Boydenco, POWER-BRAKE
| Decision Date | 09 May 1898 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 99 and 116,POWER-BRAKE,s. 99 and 116 |
| Citation | 42 L.Ed. 1136,18 S.Ct. 707,170 U.S. 537 |
| Parties | BOYDENCO. et al. v. WESTINGHOUSE et al. WESTINGHOUSE et al. v. BOYDENCO. et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This was a writ of certiorari to review a decree of the circuit court of appeals reversing a decree of the circuit court for the district of Maryland, which had sustained in part a bill filed by Westinghouse against the Boyden Power-Brake Company for the infringement of patent No. 360,070, and from which decree both parties had taken an appeal to the circuit court of appeals.
The patent in suit, which was issued March 29, 1887, to George Westinghouse, Jr., is for a fluid-pressure automatic brake mechanism, the object of which is said in the speci- fication to be 'to enable the application of brake shoes to car wheels by fluid pressure, to be effected with greater rapidity and effectiveness than heretofore, more particularly in trains of considerable length, as well as to economize compressed air in the operation of braking, by utilizing in the brake cylinders the greater portion of the volume of air which in former practice was directly discharged into the atmosphere.
'To this end, my invention, generally stated, consists in a novel combination of a brake pipe, an auxiliary reservoir, a brake cylinder, and a triple-valve device, governing, primarily, communication between the auxiliary reservoir and the brake cylinder, and, secondarily, communication directly from the brake pipe to the brake cylinder.'
There follows here a description of the Westinghouse automatic brake as theretofore used, its mode of operation, and the defects or insufficiencies which attended its application to long trains, in the following language:
'In the application of the Westinghouse automatic brake, as heretofore and at present commonly in use, each car is provided with a main air pipe, an auxiliary reservoir, a brake cylinder, and a triple valve; the triple valve having three connections, to wit, one to the main air-brake pipe, one to the auxiliary reservoir, and one to the brake cylinder. The main air pipe has a stopcock at or near each of its ends, to be opened or closed as required, and is fitted with flexible connections and couplings for connecting the pipes from car to car of a train, so as to form a continuous line for the transmission of compressed air from a main reservoir supplied by an air pump on the engine. When the brakes are off or released, but in readiness for action upon the wheels of the train, the air which fills the main reservoir and main air pipes has a pressure of from sixty-five to seventy-five pounds to the square inch, and by reason of the connections referred to the same pressure is exerted in the casings of the triple valves on both sides of their pistons, and in the auxiliary reservoirs connected therewith. At the same time passages called 'release ports' are opne from the brake cylinders to the atmosphere. When it is desired to appy the brakes, air is allowed to escape from the main air pipes through the engineer's valve, thereby reducing the pressure in the main air pipes, whereupon the then higher pressure in the auxiliary reservoirs moves the pistons of the triple valves, so as to first close the passages from the triple valves to the brake pipe, and at the same time close the release ports of all the brake cylinders, and then open the passages from h e auxiliary reservoirs to the brake cylinders, the pistons of which are forced out by the compressed air thereby admitted to the brake cylinders, applying the brakes by means of suitable levers and connections, all of which mechanism is fully shown in various letters patent granted to me.
After a detailed description of the invention, an important feature of which is a triple valve (hereinafter more fully explained in the opinion), with references to the accompanying drawings, the specification proceeds to state that,
After a further reference to the drawings, he again states that, 'so far as hereinbefore described, the triple valve accords in all substantial particulars with, and is adapted to operate similarly to, those of my letters patent Nos. 168,359, 172,064, and 220,556; and, in order that it may perform the further functions requisite in the practice of my present invention, it is provided with certain additional members, which will now be described.' These additional members, which are said to be for the purpose of effecting the admission of air directly from the main air pipe to the brake cylinder when it is desired to apply the brakes with great rapidity and full force, consist of (1) a passageway through which air can be admitted directly from the main air (or train) pipe to the brake cylinder without passing through the auxiliary reservoir; and (2) an auxiliary valve in connection with such passage, that, when the triple-valve piston makes a short or preliminary movement, the passageway direct from the train pipe to brake cylinder, controlled by said valve, will not be opened, while in the event of a long or full movement of the piston, or 'further traverse,' as it is called, such direct passageway will be thrown wide open to the admission of trainpipe air, and the brake cylinder will be rapidly filled thereby.
After describing the auxiliary sliding valve, 41, and its connections, as well as the operation of the device in ordinary (nonemergency) cases of checking the speed of or stopping trains, already fully provided for in previous patents, he pro- ceeds to state its operation in cases of emergency which the patent was specially designed to cover, as follows:
'In the event, however, of its becoming necessary to apply the brakes with great rapidity and with their greatest available force, the engineer, by means of the valve at his command, instantly discharges sufficient air from the front end of the main air pipe to effect a sudden reduction of pressure of about twenty pounds per square inch therein, whereupon the piston, 12, of the triple valve, is forced to the extreme limit of its stroke in the direction of the drain cup, 19, carrying with it the stem, 36, and auxiliary slide valve, 41, which instantly uncovers the port, 42, and discharges air from the main air pipe through the opening of the check valve, 49, and the passages, 46 and 48, to the brake cylinder; and, each car being provided with one of these devices, it will be seen that they are successively moved with great rapidity,—there being, practically, on a train of fifty cars, fifty openings for discharging compressed air from the main pipe, instead of the single opening heretofore commonly used. Not only is there a passage of considerable size opened from the brake pipe on each car, whereby the pressure is more quickly reduced, but the air so discharged is utilized in the performance of preliminary work; it being found, in practice, that the air so taken from the pipe will exert a pressure of about twenty-five pounds in the brake cylinders. When the piston, 12, arrives at the extremity of its stroke as above specified, the supplemental port, 35, of the slide valve, 14, is brought into communication with the port, 33, and passages, 22 and 16, which serves to discharge the reservoir pressure into the brake cylinder, thereby augmenting the pressure already exerted in the brake cylinder by the air admitted from the main air pipe. Upon the reduction of the pressure in the main air pipe below that in the brake cylinders, as by the breaking in two of the train, the check valve, 49, closes communication between the passages, 46 and 18, thereby preventing the return of the air from the brake cylinder to the main air pipe. The feed opening for the admission of air from the auxiliary reservoir to the brake cylinder is purposely made of comparatively small diameter, it having been determined by experiment that the initial application of the brakes should not be made with maximum force, and this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. Eastman Kodak, Civ. A. No. B-74-392-CA.
...Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products, 339 U.S. 605, 608-09, 70 S.Ct. 854, 94 L.Ed. 1097 (1950); Boyden Power Brake Co. v. Westinghouse, 170 U.S. 537, 568, 18 S.Ct. 707, 42 L.Ed. 1136 (1898); Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Sid Richardson C & G Co., 293 F.Supp. 555, 571 (N.D.Texas 1968), aff'd, 4......
-
Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.
...of the art, as distinguished from a mere improvement or perfection of what had gone before. Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co., 170 U.S. 537, 561-62, 18 S.Ct. 707, 718-19, 42 L.Ed. 1136 (1898). 81. Infringement is made out under the doctrine of equivalents when the accused process perfo......
-
Autogiro Company of America v. United States
...and not the entire test of infringement has been consistently applied by the courts since Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co., 170 U.S. 537, at 568, 18 S.Ct. 707, at 722, 42 L.Ed. 1136 (1898), where Justice Brown * * * The patentee may bring the defendant within the letter of his claims,......
-
WF & John Barnes Co. v. International Harvester Co.
...orifice added as taught by Bishop & Ernst Prior Art Patents. Claims 8 and 9: Ferris 1,843,082; Boyden Valve of Westinghouse v. Boyden Power-Brake Co., 170 U.S. 537, 18 S.Ct. 707, 42 L.Ed. 1136; Willey 1,100,642; Miller Claim 23: Briegleib Hansen & Co., German patent 220,611 of 1909; Oilgear......
-
The Colorblind Patent System and Black Inventors
...Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1300 (2012); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 592 (1978); Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse, 170 U.S. 537, 578 (1898); Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U.S. 707, 724 (1880); O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 115 (1853). 44. See Flook , 437 U.S. at 592. 45. A......
-
Construing patent claims according to their "interpretive community": a call for an attorney-plus-artisan perspective.
...by what is new as a patentable advance as shown by the specifications."). (196.) See, e.g., Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse, 170 U.S. 537, 558 (1898) (stating that the phrase "substantially as set forth" had "been uniformly held by us to import into the claim the particulars of the s......
-
The Rosetta Stone for the doctrine of means-plus-function patent claims.
...the machines disclosed in the specification rather than for functions or processes. See, e.g., Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co., 170 U.S. 537, 558 (1898) (regarding a claim to which the Court believed was to a certain extent for a function, the Court held, "[W]e can adopt no other con......
-
The accession insight and patent infringement remedies.
...1122-25 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (discussing the reverse doctrine of equivalents). (58.) Merges, Blocking Patents, supra note 56, at 91. (59.) 170 U.S. 537 (60.) Boyden, 170 U.S. at 538. (61.) Id. at 541. (62.) Id. at 564-65. (63.) Id. at 572. (64.) Cf. Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genen......