Safety Car Heating & Lighting Co. v. Gould Coupler Co.
Decision Date | 11 September 1917 |
Docket Number | 153-B. |
Citation | 245 F. 755 |
Parties | SAFETY CAR HEATING & LIGHTING CO. v. GOULD COUPLER CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
Randolph Parmly, of New York City (Robert S. Blair, Lucius E. Varney and Delos G. Haynes, all of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Kenyon & Kenyon, of New York City (Wm. Houston Kenyon, Richard Eyre and Theodore S. Kenyon, all of New York City, of counsel) for defendant.
The John L. Creveling patent in issue, No. 747,686, granted December 22, 1903, for a system of electrical regulation, has heretofore been considered by this court, and held infringed in an action brought by the plaintiff herein against the United States Light & Heating Company (222 F. 310, affirmed 223 F. 1023, . . . C.C.A. . . .), and held not infringed in a case against its successor, the United States Light & Heat Corporation; it being shown in the latter case that defendant had not used Creveling's constant output generator regulator, but had adapted a so-called double relay ampere hour system, including the constant potential lighting system, described in the McElroy patent No. 893,533, of earlier date. In still another action against the Gould Coupler Company, the defendant herein, on patent No. 1,070,080, granted to H. G. Thompson for a specific improvement of the Creveling patent with relation to charging the storage battery and protecting it from injurious overcharge, the decision of this court (229 F. 429) that infringement was proven was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals on appeal (239 F. 861, 152 C.C.A. 645). A motion for preliminary injunction herein was denied by Judge Ray.
The case now coming before me at final hearing, the defendant company renews its attacks upon the validity of the patent in suit and the scope accorded the claims in the earlier litigation, denies infringement, and contends, inter alia, that the invention was for a specific addition to a known car-lighting system, to wit, the addition of a control setting or readjusting attachment for the regulator, which operated automatically in obedience to the state of the battery charge, and that in defendant's apparatus, which comprises a constant potential system claimed to operate upon an essentially different principle from plaintiff's constant current system, there are no means for resetting or readjusting the regulator to determine the current remaining constant during speed changes.
Before referring to the claims involved, it should be understood that it was concededly old at the date of the patent in suit to combine a dynamo driven at variable speed from the car axle, a storage battery, and lamps, means for charging the battery from the generator and for disconnecting the generator from the battery while the battery is supplying current to the lamps. Improvements on such system eventuated, which made it possible to supply current to the battery and lamps at the same time or alternately. It is therefore with specific means for maintaining a constant generator current for charging the battery throughout speed changes, and also for regulating means for protecting the battery from overcharge, that we are herein concerned. Claims 1 to 8, inclusive, are involved; but it will suffice to reproduce claims 1, 5, and 8, which are characteristic of the others:
These claims include the combination of (1) a dynamo driven at speed corresponding to the variable speed of the train, (2) a storage battery receiving its supply of current from the dynamo, and (3) a regulator maintaining charging current constant throughout speed changes and means which come into operation by changes or alterations in the potential or voltage of the battery for protecting the battery from injurious overcharge. Claim 8 is limited, and does not refer to battery protection. Such means were not essential to the supplemental means for determining the generator output to be maintained, and hence need not be read into the claims by implication.
The specification referring to the objects of the invention says:
A statement of the principal characteristics of the invention with brief reference to the conclusions arrived at in the original suit may assist in understanding the respective contentions of the parties herein. The patent relates essentially to an apparatus for supplying electricity for separately lighting railroad cars, regardless of whether or not they are connected to other cars. In prior constant current regulators it was concededly difficult to correct the field current during the charging period because of speed variations. It was impossible to continue charging the battery from the dynamo and at the same time maintain a desired constant voltage or pressure upon the conductors or circuits, so as to actuate the necessary instrumentalities to regulate the voltage directly by the current output. It was a problem not easily solved. Indeed, Professors Scott and Puffer, testifying in this action for defendant, said that, in car axle lighting systems generally, correction for speed was the important question, and this court in the original suit practically decided that Creveling substantially solved the problem by regulating for a practically constant current, to wit, by his combination of means for controlling the current output for charging the battery and also automatically changing such current or charging rate by changing the voltage of the battery when it reached certain voltages or when the battery reached full charge, thus protecting it from injurious overcharge. By his combination of elements-- old elements combined in a new and novel way-- he achieved regulation for constant current from a variable speed generator, and by inclusion of another element, consisting of a voltage regulator or solenoid 31 (Fig. 1) and automatically bringing into regulating action field coil 9 (opposing coil 8) located in shunt to the battery circuit, he altered or cut down the current, so as to protect the battery or determine the current which the regulator should hold constant.
In the original action a so-called stop charge apparatus, which operated to eliminate the charging current, and an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carson Inv. Co. v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co.
...a party. Andrews v. Hovey, 123 U. S. 267, 8 S. Ct. 101, 31 L. Ed. 160; Beach v. Hobbs (C. C.) 82 F. 916; Safety Car Heating & Lighting Co. v. Gould Coupler Co. (D. C.) 245 F. 755; Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U. S. (12 Otto) 707, 26 L. Ed. 279; Union Switch & Signal Co. v. Hall Switch & Signal ......
-
Kammerdiner v. SR BOWEN CO.
...so radically different. United States v. Berdan Firearms Mfg. Co., 156 U. S. 552, 15 S. Ct. 420, 39 L. Ed. 530; Safety Car H. & L. Co. v. Gould Coupler Co. (D. C.) 245 F. 755; Union Steam-Pump Co. v. Battle Creek Steam-Pump Co. (C. C. A.) 104 F. 337; Walker on Patents (6th Ed.) vol. 1, p. 4......
-
Yale Hook & Eye Co. v. Interwoven Hook & Eye Co.
...principles, and constituting a radical departure from complainant's patent, there is no infringement. Safety Car Heating & Lighting Co. v. Gould Coupler Co. (D. C.) 245 F. 755. I have not considered the claimed superiority or capability of defendants' machine for more extended use in variou......