Campbell Printing-Press & Mfg. Co. v. Eames Vacuum Brake Co.

• Decision Date: 18 November 1890
• Citation: 44 F. 64
• Parties: CAMPBELL PRINTING-PRESS & MANUF'G CO. v. EAMES VACUUM BRAKE CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

44 F. 64

CAMPBELL PRINTING-PRESS & MANUF'G CO. v. EAMES VACUUM BRAKE CO.

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

November 18, 1890

Philip R. Voorhees, for complainant.

J. E Maynadier, for defendant.

COXE J.

The complainant sues to restrain the infringement of letters patent No. 401,680, dated April 16, 1889, granted to Edward S. Boynton, assignor to the complainant, for an improvement in valves for pneumatic pipes or tubes. On the 17th of July 1877, a patent, No. 193,078, was granted to Frederick W Eames for a new device for coupling the pipes between railroad cars, especially designed for use in connection with the vacuum power-brake. In the Eames structure the valve is made to hold the coupling, or to fly shut upon the valve seat by means of a torsional helical spring. In the patent in hand the same result is produced by a compressive helical spring. The substitution of the one spring for the other, with the ingenious mechanical changes made necessary thereby, constitutes the only difference between the Eames and Boynton couplings. Invention is predicated of this substitution and this only. The patentee refers, in the specification, to the Eames vacuum brake and points out various defects in the coiled torsional spring there used, which, he says, is perishable and liable to deteriorate under the influence of grit, dirt, and climatic changes. These defects he asserts are 'well-known,' and are, he thinks, remedied by his spring, which is within a case and thus protected from the deteriorating influences referred to. The specification further states 'that helical, compressive springs have been used for the automatic closing of valves and that such a combination is not broadly new; but in such cases both the springs and valves are not external to but one or both are within a valve-casing. ' The claims are as follows:

'(1) In combination with an external pivoted valve, a compressive helical spring inclosed within a tubular guide formed upon or attached to the valve, substantially as and for the purposes set forth. (2) In combination with an external pivoted valve, a self-closing device consisting of a compressive helical spring held within a tubular guide formed upon or attached to said valve between one end of said guide and a stop at the pivotal point of the valve, substantially as and for the purposes set forth.'

Infringement is admitted. The defenses are, first, that the patent is void for want of novelty; and, second, that the defendants have an equitable license under it. The elements of the combination of the first claim are:

'(1) An external pivoted valve. (2) A compressive helical spring within a tubular guide. (3

...