Eaid v. Twohy Bros Co.

Decision Date07 February 1916
Docket Number2589.
Citation230 F. 444
PartiesEAID et al. v. TWOHY BROS. CO. et al. [1]
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon; Chas. E. Wolverton, Judge.

Suit in equity by Clayton T. Eaid and Joseph A. McConnell against the Twohy Bros. Company, the Northwestern Equipment Company, and Elbert G. Chandler. Decree for defendants, and complainants appeal. Affirmed.

PATENTS 328-- VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT-- CHOCK ATTACHMENT FOR CARS.

The McConnell patent, No. 901,815, for a chock attachment for log cars, is for improvements only, and in view of the prior art is limited to the precise devices shown and described. As so limited, held not infringed by the devices of the Chandler patent, No. 1,066,795.

Stapleton & Sleight and Joseph L. Atkins, all of Portland, Or., for appellants.

William R. Litzenberg, of Portland, Or., for appellees.

Before GILBERT and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and RUDKIN, District Judge.

ROSS Circuit Judge.

The appellants were complainants in the court below in a suit for the alleged infringement of a patent issued in 1908 to the appellant McConnell-- the alleged infringers operating under and in pursuance of a patent issued about five years thereafter to the appellee Chandler. McConnell declared in his patent, among other things, that his invention 'relates to logging cars and the like, and more particularly to chock attachments designed to be secured upon a car for the purpose of holding logs or timbers against displacement upon the car. Another object is to provide an adjustable chock, which, when in operative position, is securely held in place and cannot be forced accidentally out of proper position. Another object is to provide novel means whereby chocks can be moved into lowered positions, said means being so disposed that there is no danger of the released logs falling upon the operator. Another object is to provide simple means for detachably securing the attachment to a car. With these and other objects in view, the invention consists of certain novel features of construction and combinations of parts,' afterwards described in the specifications; the patent concluding with 10 claims.

We see no merit whatever in the contention on the part of the appellants that the patent issued to McConnell was in any respect of a pioneer character, for the record discloses that years before patents had been issued to other persons having the same objects in view, as well as some similar features and, indeed, that McConnell was compelled by the Patent Office to amend his claims in several respects in order to avoid anticipation and to secure a patent at all. The earliest patent found in the record was issued August 7 1888, to one Wilbur, who declared therein:

'My invention relates to certain new and useful improvements in devices for holding logs or lumber upon a frame when it is desired in transporting, the same consisting in the construction and combination of the parts, as will be hereinafter fully set forth, and specifically pointed out in the claims. In the accompanying drawings, Figure 1 is a front view of a supporting frame, showing my improvement applied thereto, said frame being supported by a suitable truck. Fig. 2 is a plan view. Fig. 3 is a detail perspective view. Fig. 4 is a detail view of one of the links detached. The frame or support to which my improvement is adapted to be applied may be used in connection either with a car truck for transporting logs or upon a truck for carrying logs to a sawing mechanism in a sawmill.
'A refers to a beam, two of which are employed, each being provided on its upper edge with an angle iron, a, upon which the logs will rest to hold them from longitudinal movement. The beams are secured to suitable truck frames. B and B' refer to guide strips, which are secured to the upper and lower edges of the beam A, so as to project outwardly therefrom to form slots in which the serrated bars C may move vertically. The serrated bar has its ends reduced to lie between these guides and the edge of the beam. The upper edge of this bar C is T-headed, the outer flange of which is serrated, as shown at c. To the T-head of the bar C is secured a sliding block, D, one edge thereof being beveled or inclined, as clearly shown in Fig. 1. The sliding block has pivoted to its lower edge, opposite the serrations, a pawl, e, which has an inward projection which engages with the serrations c, said pawl being held normally against the serrations by a spring, e'. The sliding block D can be slid or moved upon the serrated bar in one direction by simply pushing the same; but to move it in an opposite direction it is necessary to elevate the pawl.
'Suitably pivoted to the sides of the beam A are links E E, which are bifurcated at one end, as shown at f, and the sides thereof are recessed, as shown at f', so that when they are turned upon their pivots to lie horizontal, as shown in dotted lines, Fig. 1, the connecting bar will lie within said recesses to permit the serrated bar to be depressed sufficiently to allow the sliding blocks D to lie on a line or beneath the upper edge of the beam A. The connecting bar F is pivoted to each of the links and also to a trip rod, G. This trip rod is connected to a pivoted bar, H, the front end of which is recessed for the reception of the reduced end of the trip rod and within which the said trip rod is pivoted. This bar H is provided on its upper edge with a pin, which serves to hold in place a wrench or lever, I, for operating the same. The bar H is held on a line with the trip rod when the links are elevated, by a spring catch, h.
'The attachment hereinbefore described is applied on each side of the beam A. When it is desired to hold logs on the beam A, the lever or wrench I is slipped over the bar H to depress the spring h, and then by pressing the lever downwardly the parts are caused to assume the position shown in dotted lines Fig. 1, the sliding blocks D being below the upper edge of the beam. Logs are then loaded upon the beams, and the serrated bars are elevated by moving the trip rods and parts connected therewith to the position shown in Fig. 1 in full lines, when the sliding blocks will be moved above the upper edge of the beam and can be slid upon the serrated bar to about against the logs and prevent them rolling off the beams.
'Having thus described my invention, I claim--
'1. In combination with the beam A and serrated bar C, provided with adjustable sliding blocks, links pivoted to the beam and connected to each other to be operated simultaneously for elevating the serrated bar, and adjustable block carried thereby, substantially as shown, and for the purpose set forth.
'2. In combination with the beam A, guide strips B B, B' B', vertical moving bars held by said guide strips and provided with suitable sliding blocks D D, links E, pivotally secured to the beam A and to connecting bars F, and the trip rods G, pivotally secured to the ends of the bars H, the parts being organized substantially as shown, and for the purpose set forth.
'3. In combination with a beam, A, a vertically movable serrated bar carrying sliding blocks D, links E, having the upper portions thereof bifurcated and one of the slides recessed, a
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Swindell v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • February 8, 1916
  • Magnavox Co. v. Hart & Reno
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • October 29, 1934
    ...not infringe." (Italics our own.) Other decisions by this court to the same effect are to be found in the following cases: Eaid v. Twohy Bros. Co., 230 F. 444, 447; Wilson & Willard Mfg. Co. v. Union Tool Co., 249 F. 729, 731, certiorari denied, 248 U. S. 559, 39 S. Ct. 6, 63 L. Ed. 421; Pa......
  • International Harvester Co. v. Killefer Mfg. Co., 6712.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • September 7, 1933
    ...result by other means.' Electric R. Signal Co. v. Hall Ry. Signal Co., 114 U. S. 87, 5 S. Ct. 1069, 1075, 29 L. Ed. 96." In Eaid v. Twohy Bros. Co., 230 F. 444, 447, this court also said: "Being a mere improvement on the prior art, McConnell is only entitled to the precise devices described......
  • Pacific States Elec. Co. v. Wright
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • January 9, 1922
    ... ... charge of infringement cannot be maintained. Eaid et al ... v. Twohy Bros. et al., 230 F. 444, 447, 144 C.C.A. 586; ... and cases there cited ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT