Walker v. City of Terre Haute

• Decision Date: 29 October 1890
• Citation: 44 F. 70
• Parties: WALKER v. CITY OF TERRE HAUTE.
• Court: United States Circuit Court, District of Indiana

44 F. 70

WALKER v. CITY OF TERRE HAUTE.

United States Circuit Court, D. Indiana.

October 29, 1890

McDonald Butler & Snow and Robert H. Parkinson, for complainant.

Baker &amp Daniels, Horace B. Jones, and D. N. Taylor, for defendant.

GRESHAM J.

The complainant, as assignee of reissued patent No. 6,831, brings this suit for an injunction and accounting against the city of Terre Haute. The inventor, Robert Bragg, filed his application for a patent June 16, 1873, and the patent was granted July 13, 1875. The application for a reissue was filed October 9, 1875, and the reissue was granted January 4 1876. The reissue, like the original, covers a combination with a fire-alarm gong of mechanism which operates automatically, and releases the horses from their stalls simultaneously with the alarm. The device is so arranged that the blow of the gong-hammer, announcing the alarm, also, and at the same time trips the liberating mechanism, opens the stall-doors, and allows the trained horses to spring to the pole of the engine before the striking of the signal is completed. This was a great improvement on the old method of releasing the horses by hand, and leading them to the pole and, since its introduction, engines can and do reach fires more quickly. 'The object of my invention,' says the specification, 'is to provide a novel attachment for gongs, and it is principally valuable and applicable to fire-engine houses, where the horses which draw the engines ought to be released at the very instant of the first stroke of the alarm, so that they can take their places at the engine and hose-carriage, ready to be attached thereto by the first man who may arrive. My invention consists in the employment of an arm which is so situated that at the first stroke of the hammer upon the gong it will also strike this arm, which has attached to it any suitable mechanism, so that the force of the blow will release, through this mechanism, a weight. The falling of this weight will pull a rope which is connected with the mechanism to be operated in such a manner that the pull upon it will operate the mechanism. * * * The operation will be as follows: The gong-hammer, upon its first stroke, will strike the pad, E, and thus force the rod, D, and the arm, or lever, C, back until the roller, G, is released from the recess, F. * * * Various mechanical devices may be substituted for those herein described, as will be readily seen; but the principal point of novelty is the operating of these devices directly from the gong-hammer. ' Bragg did not limit himself to the precise mechanism described in his specifications and illustrated in his drawings. He had in mind that mechanism and its equivalents,-- any suitable means for utilizing the force of the gong-hammer in releasing a weight (which is the equivalent of a spring) for operating any distant mechanism simultaneously with the stroke of the hammer. The claims of the reissue, which are involved in this suit, (the first and fourth,) read:

'(1) The trip-rod, D, arranged as described, and the oscillating lever, C, for the purpose of releasing a suspended weight by the movement of a gong-hammer, substantially as and for the purpose described.'

'(4) The trip-rod, D, oscillating lever, C, and suspended weight, B, in combination with the hammer of a gong, for the purpose of operating mechanism distant from the gong, substantially as above described.' The claims in the original read:

'(1) The rod with its knob, E, and the oscillating lever, C, for the purpose of releasing a suspended weight by the direct action of a gong-hammer, substantially as and for the purpose herein described.

'(2) In combination with rod, D, and the recessed oscillating lever, C, pivoted as described, the weight, B, and its roller, G, for the purpose of relieving friction and removing the rod, D, from the action of the gong-hammer, substantially as herein described.

'(3) In combination with the weight, B, caused to fall, as shown, the bell-crank lever, I, cord, K, and lever, L, for releasing the slide, O, and weight, R, and thus releasing the horses by means of the cord, T, substantially as herein described.'

The specifications in both patents describe the same invention. The defendant's expert found no invention referred to in either the description or the claims of the reissue not described in the original as instrumental in carrying out the object of the invention. He thought, however, that the claims of the reissue, without covering any new invention, allowed greater freedom in construction than did the claims of the original. 'The rod with its knob, E,' one of the elements of the combination in the first original claim, is...