Boston Towboat Co. v. Chase Mach. Co.

118 F. 36, 55 C.C.A. 58, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4504
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedOctober 7, 1902
DocketNo. 897
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 118 F. 36 (Boston Towboat Co. v. Chase Mach. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Boston Towboat Co. v. Chase Mach. Co., 118 F. 36, 55 C.C.A. 58, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4504 (6th Cir. 1902).

Opinion

WING, District Judge.

Upon the rehearing of this cause" the consideration of the court has been confined chiefly to the question as to whether the state of the prior art, as disclosed by the record, does not compel a holding either that the appellant’s patent is void for want of novelty and by reason of anticipation, or that its scope is so narrowed as not to include the device used by the appellee. The specifications of the appellant’s patent point out the purpose of the device to be the obviation of a difficulty which is stated to be incident to the towing of vessels in a turbulent sea. With reference to this difficulty, it is stated in the specifications that:

“When one vessel is being towed by another in a turbulent sea, the tow line, cable, or hawser is subjected to sudden alternating degrees of tension consequent upon the changing relations of the vessels to each other as they ride upon the waves or settle in the troughs of the sea, and the sudden strains on the cables are sometimes so enormous as to be beyond the endurance of the cables, and the latter are therefore liable to be broken.”
The means for accomplishing this object are described to be—
“A balancing cable drum, the balancing being effected by a steam or air engine so geared to the drum that the normal pressure of the engine cylinder or cylinders will balance the normal strain on the cable; but, if the strain on the latter be suddenly increased, the cushioning effect of the steam or air in the engine cylinder or cylinders will permit the cable to ‘pay out’ somewhat, and thus yield to the sudden strain, thereby rendering the action of the cable yielding or elastic. To counterbalance the increased strain on the cable, we provide a pressure-regulating valve, which is geared to the shaft of the cable drum and connected with the engine cylinder or cylinders, so that, when the strain on the cable causes the latter to pay out, the turning of the drum shaft will increase (by means of the regulating valve) the pressure in the said cylinders, and thus quickly counteract the tendency of the cable to pay out, and, when the lessening strain on the cable permits the drum to be turned (by the pressure regulating of the engine cylinder or cylinders), the reverse movement of the drum shaft will reverse the screw of the regulating pressure valve, to bring the pressure down to equalize the lessening strain on the. cable.”
Claim i of the patent is as follows :
“In a towing machine, the combination, with a cable drum, of an engine the shaft of which is geared to said drum to balance the load on the cable, and a pressure-regulating valve located in the steam passage to the engine cylinder or cylinders and operatively connected with the shaft of said drum, whereby the pressure of the engine cylinder or cylinders is increased as increased strain on the cable causes the latter to be paid out, and is diminished as the strain on the cable is lessened and the latter is hauled in, substantially as set forth.”

Claims 2, 3, 4, and 5 cover the same device as claim 1, with additions concerning the minor mechanism relating to the operation- of the-connection between the drum and the pressure valve. The device designed to be covered by claim 1 is a machine to be used in towing,, consisting of an engine, the shaft of which is geared to a drum adapted; to have a towing cable wound about it, and having mechanism connecting the shaft of the drum with the valve which admits steam to the-[38]*38cylinders of the engine. This connecting mechanism is. adapted to-operate the valve when the shaft of the drum is put in motion. When the drum is operated by the unwinding of the cable, the connecting mechanism opens the valve. When the drum rotates in the opposite direction, the connection tends to close the valve. There are certain stops provided in the mechanism which prevent the operation of the valve in opening and closing beyond certain desired limits. While the valve which is subject to the operation of this connecting mechanism is described in the specifications and the claim as a “pressure-regulating valve,” it is urged by the appellant that the valve intended by this designation is a simple throttle valve. We will consider the patent, in connection with the devices disclosed in the prior art, as if, instead of the designation “pressure-regulating valve,” there had been used the term “valve,” or “throttle valve.”

In the English patent to Gray, sealed June xi, 1867, and dated December 18, 1866, there is described, as the second part of the invention, a steam steering engine, the purpose of which was to keep the rudder of a ship in any required position and to restore it to that position against the contrary action of the sea. To quote from the specifications :

“To accomplish this, I construct an engine with two cylinders (sometimes called a ‘pair of engines,’ but in this specification I will use the term ‘engine’ to include the whole), with their steam and exhaust passages and slide valve so arranged that the direction of the steam and the exhaust can be reversed by moving a special admission valve into one or other of its positions. I attach this admission valve by suitable connections to a part of the telegraph gear described in the preceding part of this specification, and there designated the traverse lever, which receives its motion from the screwed shaft, therein also described; and I thereby communicate motions to this admission valve corresponding to the longitudinal motions of that screwed shaft, so that the position of this admission valve with reference to its whole travel will always correspond with the position of the screwed shaft with reference to its longitudinal travel, and it will agree in its positions, also, with the positions and indications of the telegraph index lever. * * * The steering-wheel shaft may be either the shaft of a chain barrel, or a screw with side arms, or the screw or shaft for actuating hydraulic or other steering apparatus.”

On page 19 of the specifications, Gray describes the valve referred to as follows:

“K, stop valve for letting on the steam to the engine. This valve does not form a working part of the engine, but is merely an admission valve. When it is opened at one end, the engine rotates in one direction; when it is opened at the other end, the engine rotates in the opposite direction. * * * This stop valve is opened and shut by a lever, Q, on the traverse lever shaft, Q, and the position of the stop valve with reference to its whole travel will always correspond with the position of the screwed shaft, D, with reference to its longitudinal travel.”

There appear in the drawings and specifications of this patent the combination of a drum having a drum shaft which is operated by a steam engine, and an admission valve which is operated by a lever, Q,—this lever táking its motion from a beveled gear end upon the drum shaft. By the following language in Gray’s specifications it appears that Gray had fully in mind the idea of using steam in the cylinder of the engine as a means of lessening the shock of waves:

[39]*39“The steering engine acts, under these circumstances, as a yielding, but powerful, brake, and restrains the rudder into its required position, acting of its own accord within the limits of the traverse of the screwed shaft”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Levin Bros. v. Davis Mfg. Co.
72 F.2d 163 (Eighth Circuit, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
118 F. 36, 55 C.C.A. 58, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boston-towboat-co-v-chase-mach-co-ca6-1902.