Boyce v. Taft-Buick Corp.

36 F.2d 357, 4 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 10, 1929 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1684
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York
DecidedDecember 12, 1929
DocketNo. 3463
StatusPublished

This text of 36 F.2d 357 (Boyce v. Taft-Buick Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Boyce v. Taft-Buick Corp., 36 F.2d 357, 4 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 10, 1929 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1684 (E.D.N.Y. 1929).

Opinion

GALSTON, District Judge.

This is a patent infringement suit involving alleged infringement of letters patent No. 1,275,654 and letters patent No. 1,206,783. Both patents relate to equipment in automobiles to indicate to the driver the normal or abnormal condition of the circulatory water system.

The defendant is an automobile dealer charged with the infringement of these patents because of the sale of Buiek automobiles equipped with thermometers for indicating to the driver the condition of the water in [358]*358the cooling system of the automobile engine. Defendant’s thermometer and that defined in letters patent 1,206,783 are called “distant reading thermometers” because of their use for indicating the temperature condition at a point distant from the place of reading; whereas patent No. 1,275,654 purports broadly to cover an indicating device readable from the driver’s seat of the automobile and having a temperature responsive element located in any position to be influenced by the changes of temperature within the cooling system.

The main defense is that the’ patents are invalid because they do not set forth patentable inventions. It is contended that the patents cover nothing more than the use of a thermometer in a normal manner with no new or unexpected results to indicate to the driver the temperature of the water in the engine cooling system. In addition to the defense of want of invention as to both patents, it is contended that patent No. 1,275,654 is void for double patenting.

Qf patent No. 1,275,654, only elaims 4 and 25 are at issue. All the elaims of the second patent are involved.

While neither of the patents in suit has been adjudicated, another patent, No. 1,090,-776, of the same inventor, relating to the same art, has been sustained. Boyce et al. v. Stewart-Warner Speedometer Corporation (C. C. A.) 220 F. 118; Boyce et al. v. Pyrene Manufacturing Company (D. C.) 290 F. 998; Pyrene Manufacturing Company v. Boyce et al. (C. C. A.) 292 F. 480; Pyrene Manufacturing Company v. Boyce et al. (C. C. A.) 1 F.(2d) 185; Boyce et al. v. Semaphoric Indicator Company (D. C.) 24 F.(2d) 248.

In patent No. 1,275,654, issued on the earliest Boyce application, filed October 17, 1912, the inventor states that Ms invention “relates to indicating means associated with a motor propelled veMele devised for the purpose of showing when trouble or abnormal conditions exist in the power plant thereof, whether such conditions result from overheating, or from the temperature of the engine or its cooling system being too low for safe or satisfactory operation.”

The principal object of Ms invention was: “To provide means wMeh may be organized in connection with a power plant of a motor driven vehicle for indicating to the driver of the vehicle at all times the working condition of the engine and for rendering it possible for Mm to ascertain the existence of abnormal and especially dangerous and possible destructive thermal conditions of the engine, wMeh means by reason of the construction and arrangement' thereof, may be easily read by the driver of the machine from Ms seat, obviating the necessity of close inspection to determine the existence of such abnormal conditions.”

A specific object of the invention is stated to be the provision of an instrument, of the character indicated, on the radiator of the vehicle substantially in the line of vision of the driver.

Both elaims 4 and 25 are broad elaims:

“4. Means for indicating the thermal condition of the engine of an automobile having an internal combustion engine provided with a liquid circulation cooling system, comprising the combination with the cooling system, of an indicating device having an indicating part readable from the driver’s seat of the automobile, and having a temperature responsive element located in a position to be influenced by changes of temperature within the cooling system.”
“25. In combination with a veMele, having an internal combustion propelling motor, a fluid containing means associated therewith so as to be influenced by temperatures of the motor structure and means for showing normal and undesirable conditions of the power-plant, comprising a part mounted in temperature-responsive relationsMp to the fluid-containing means to be controlled by the changes in the temperature of said motor structure, and a slight indicator part associated with said first mentioned part, adapted to be affected by the changing temperature conditions of the latter and located to be read by the operator of the veMele while driving the same, said indicator part being adapted to present varying indications normally to serve as a guide for the operator in driving the motor at proper temperatures and abnormally as a warning to prevent or overcome undesirable conditions in the power plant.”

The prior art set up by the defense includes a number of patents, printed publications, and uses, the most important of wMeh, so far as these two Boyce elaims are concerned, is letters patent No. 1,159,918, granted November 9,1915, to F. E. Fowler, Jr., on an application filed February 24,1913. TMs patent in the statement of objects is not unlike that set forth in Boyce patent No. 1,275,-654. Fowler says:

“One object of my invention is to provide a water-cooled internal combustion engine that comprises a visual means, preferably arranged in close proximity to the operator, for [359]*359indicating whether or not the water is circulating properly through the cooling system.”
“Another object is to provide an internal combustion automobile engine that comprises means for showing the approximate temperature of the water in the cooling system after it has passed through the radiator and before it enters the water-jackets of the cylinders, said means consisting of a thermometer that is preferably arranged on the dash of the automobile in plain view of the driver or operator. And still another object is to provide an efficient device of simple construction that can be applied easily to an automobile for indicating the approximate temperature of the water in the cooling system before it enters the cylinders of the engine.”

Fowler did not place his thermometer bulb in the neck of the radiator as in the earlier Boyce patent in suit, but provided a thermometer E on the dash board of the automobile in view of the driver or operator; the lower end of the thermometer projected into a chamber F, into which chamber ran conduits!! and 3, respectively, from the supply pipe B of the cooling system and the return pipe D thereof “thereby causing the cool water to circulate from the supply pipe B through the chamber F and then up to the return pipe B.” He continues: “One desirable feature of an internal combustion engine of the construction above-described is that the operator always knows whether or not the water is circulating freely through the cooling system. If the thermometer shows that the water in the chamber F is boiling or near boiling point, the operator knows that there is some obstruction in the system which prevents the water from circulating freely for when the water circulates properly it will always be below boiling point after it has passed through the radiator.

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

Related

Pyrene Mfg. Co. v. Boyce
1 F.2d 185 (Third Circuit, 1924)
Boyce v. Semaphoric Indicator Co.
24 F.2d 248 (N.D. Illinois, 1926)
Justi v. Clark
108 F. 659 (Seventh Circuit, 1901)
General Electric Co. v. Sangamo Electric Co.
174 F. 246 (Seventh Circuit, 1909)
Barry v. Harpoon Castor Mfg. Co.
209 F. 207 (Second Circuit, 1913)
Boyce v. Stewart-Warner Speedometer Corp.
220 F. 118 (Second Circuit, 1914)
Railroad Supply Co. v. Hart Steel Co.
222 F. 261 (Seventh Circuit, 1915)
Boyce v. Pyrene Mfg. Co.
290 F. 998 (D. New Jersey, 1923)
Pyrene Mfg. Co. v. Boyce
292 F. 480 (Third Circuit, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 F.2d 357, 4 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 10, 1929 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyce-v-taft-buick-corp-nyed-1929.