Bradley v. Eccles

• Citation: 138 F. 911
• Decision Date: 12 June 1905
• Docket Number: 6,961.
• Parties: BRADLEY v. ECCLES.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

138 F. 911

BRADLEY v. ECCLES.

No. 6,961.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. New York.

June 12, 1905

Howard P. Denison, for complainant.

William A. Megrath, for defendant.

RAY District Judge.

The complainant alleges infringement of claims 1 and 2 of reissued letters patent No. 11,260, above referred to, and which claims read as follows:

'(1) The combination with the draft-eye, composed of a fixed section and a movable section, of a spring-arm secured at one end and free at the other, a cam-lever pivoted to the free end of said spring-arm, and a tie attached to the cam-lever outside of its fulcrum, and connecting the cam-lever with the movable section of the draft-eye whereby the spring-arm exerts a constant pressure upon the movable section, and also holds the cam-lever yieldingly in a locked position, substantially as set forth.

'(2) The combination, with the axle, of a draft-eye composed of a forwardly projecting fixed section and a movable section hinged to the front end of the fixed section, a spring-arm secured to the axle, and projecting forwardly therefrom, a cam-lever hinged to the free front end of the spring-arm and a tie attached to the cam-lever outside of its fulcrum, and connecting the cam-lever with the hinged section of the draft-eye, substantially as set forth.'

The defendant alleges two defenses: (1) That the thill-coupling, etc., covered by the said claims is not, in view of the prior art, a patentable invention; and (2) that such coupling was in public use and on sale in the United States for more than two years prior to November 17, 1890, the date of the filing of the application for the original letters patent.

The elements of claim 1 are (1) a draft-eye composed of a fixed section and a movable section; (2) a spring-arm secured at one end and free at the other; (3) a cam-lever pivoted at the free end of such spring-arm; and (4) a tie attached to the cam-lever outside its fulcrum, and connecting the cam-lever with the movable section of the draft-eye. There is no disagreement as to the elements of claim 1. Nor is there any real difference between the parties as to the elements of claim 2. Defendant says it contains the following:

'(1) The axle; (2) a draft-eye composed of a forwardly projecting fixed section and (3) a movable section hinged to the front end of the fixed section; (4) a spring-arm secured to the axle, and projecting forwardly therefrom; (5) a cam-lever hinged to the free front end of the spring-arm; (6) a tie (bail) attached to the cam-lever outside of its fulcrum, and connecting the cam-lever with the hinged section of the draft-eye.' In enumerating the elements, defendant adds the axle, and divides the draft-eye into two elements-- a forwardly projecting fixed section, and a movable section hinged to the front end of such fixed section.

The specifications state:

'This invention is a specific improvement of the thill-coupling for which I have obtained United States letters patent No. 341,235, dated May 4, 1886. The object of my present invention is to provide the thill-coupling with a locking device which shall be more secure and reliable in its operation, and capable of compensating for the wear and abrasion of the coupling-pin and draft-eye; and, to that end, the invention consists in the improved construction and combination of parts, as hereinafter more fully described and set forth in the claims.'

Complainant admits and states in his brief:

'Upon comparing this claim (2) with claim 1, it is noted that the only difference is that it specifies 'a forwardly projecting fixed section,' and also 'spring-arm secured to the axle, and projecting forwardly therefrom.''

The whole thill-coupling made and sold by the defendant is a substantial copy or duplicate of the complainant's coupling; the only difference of note being that while the complainant attaches the spring-arm to the rear part or end of the fixed section of the draft-eye (being that part called the 'clip-tie,' where it comes against the axle, so that this end of the spring-arm is fixed between the back end of the draft-eye and the axle, and so held in place), the defendant attaches this fixed end of the spring-arm to the underside of the draft-eye at a point beneath the place where the thill-iron is embraced within the jaw of the draft-eye formed by the shutting down of the movable end of this eye upon the fixed end thereof. Attached in either place, so as to be held firmly in position, this end of the spring maintains a fixed relation to the axle, and at right angles therewith, which is all that is necessary or intended. Attached in either place, the idea of means, means and mechanical working, and result attained are the same.

I have carefully examined the evidence and prior patents put in evidence to show the prior art, and am satisfied that the coupling in question, in view of the prior art, discloses patentable invention. It is true that there was a locking of the parts in the prior art, but the devices for locking were different, and the construction of the coupling, as a whole, was quite different. In the field to which this patent in suit relates, the improvement is useful and important. The defendant's expert said, in substance, speaking of the patents of the prior art in evidence:

'I do not find a spring-arm secured at one end and free at the other, a cam-lever pivoted to the free end of said spring-arm, and a bail attached to the cam-lever outside of its fulcrum, and connecting the cam-lever with the movable section of the draft-eye; but I do find a construction by which a constant pressure on the bail is secured, and a construction in which the cam-lever will be held in its closed or locked position.'

A careful examination of the patents to which reference is made, viz., Hannan patent, No. 341,235, of May 4, 1886, Miller and Wright patent, No. 376,606 of January 17, 1888, and Miller and Wright patent of August 21, 1888, No. 388,144, and Holden patent of February 18, 1890, No. 421,713, satisfies me that anticipation is not shown, and that, in view of such patents, there is patentable invention disclosed in the production of the complainant's device.

Coming to the other defense-- that of prior use-- I have had more difficulty in arriving at a satisfactory conclusion. It is claimed by the defendant--and much evidence has been given of a more or less satisfactory and conclusive nature tending to show such alleged fact-- that the patented thill-coupling described in the patent in suit was in public use more than two years prior to the filing of the application for the patent in question. It is, of course, well settled that, under section 4886 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3382), when a device has been in public use and on sale in the United States for more than two years prior to the filing of the application on which a patent has been granted, the patent will be void. Edgarton v. Furst & Bradley Mfg. Co. (C.C.) 9 Fed. 450; Manning v. Glue Company, 108 U.S. 462, 2 Sup.Ct. 860, 27 L.Ed. 793; Detroit Company v. Lunkenheimer (C.C.) 30 F. 190; Andrew v. Hovey, 123 U.S. 267, 8 Sup.Ct. 101, 31 L.Ed. 160; Andrew v. Hovey, 124 U.S. 694, 8 Sup.Ct. 676, 31 L.Ed. 557.

In Manning v. Glue Company, supra, the court said:

'It is the policy of the patent laws to forbid the issue of a patent for an invention which has been in public use before the application therefor. The statute of 1836 (5 Stat. 117 c. 357,...