Home/Second Circuit/Bragg-Kliesrath Corporation v. Farrell

Bragg-Kliesrath Corporation v. Farrell

36 F.2d 845, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 2272
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedDecember 16, 1929
Docket93
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 36 F.2d 845 (Bragg-Kliesrath Corporation v. Farrell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bragg-Kliesrath Corporation v. Farrell, 36 F.2d 845, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 2272 (2d Cir. 1929).

Opinions

MACK, Circuit Judge.

In the operation of internal combustion automobile engines, the engine pistons suck into the cylinders successive charges of -an. explosive, mixture -.'of- air and-liquid fuel-delivered through a [847]*847carburetor to tbe intake manifold under tbe control of a throttle valve. When the engine is running at maximum speed the throttle valve is practically wide open, the mixture passing to the engine cylinders is at approximately normal atmospheric pressure, and no appreciable rarifieation or vacuum exists in the manifold. As the throttle valve is closed, the suction passage through the manifold is restricted, and since the intake stroke of the engine pistons and the capacity of the cylinders remain the same, the mixture between the throttle valve and the cylinders becomes rarified and a partial vacuum is created in the manifold. The engine usually is not stopped by the closing of the throttle valve but receives a minimum supply of explosive mixture ordinarily known as the idling mixture, sufficient to keep the engine turning over, so that it may be accelerated as its power for propulsive purposes is again desired. When the engine is so turning idly with the throttle valve closed, or almost closed, the vacuum in the suction passage is greatest, and this partial vacuum may be termed a byproduct of the slowing down of engine operation, since it is produced only when the engine is not operated at maximum speed and power.

The Dickson patent sought to utilize this by-product of available force to apply the brakes of the vehicle. On a base structure of the ordinary automobile chassis and engine, the specifications show a pipe, 25, running from a point in the manifold above the throttle valve to a suitable brake cylinder, 16, one end of which is connected with the atmosphere, and the 'other or elosed end to this pipe. When the engine throttle is elosed to the idling position, the air in the closed portion of the brake cylinder, 16, is exhausted into the manifold through the pipe, 25, and the atmospheric pressure on the other, or open, end of the brake cylinder causes the piston to move toward the elosed end. The piston is connected to the usual brake rod and applies the brakes. An extraordinary amount of static force on the brake bands is attained: the suction in the manifold is about 10 pounds per square inch; in a brake cylinder 6 inches in diameter this is increased to about 300 pounds; and the movement of the piston is sufficient to permit a leverage of 48 to 1. The application or release of the brakes under the Dickson patent is achieved by means of a three-way valve, 26, inserted in the pipe 25 between the manifold and the brake cylinder. It is, evident that Dickson understood that the introduction of any considerable amount of unfuelized air into the mixture in the manifold, through pipe 25, would tend to stall the engine. Accordingly, the three-way valve, 26, was so arranged as to permit either the suction pressure or the atmosphere to he introduced into the elosed end of the brake cylinder, but to , prevent the atmosphere from entering the manifold- at any time. In this fashion only the relatively slight amount of air present in. the elosed end of the brake cylinder could be exhausted into the manifold and this air could be readily fuelized by the liquid fuel adhering to the sides of the manifold.

The three-way valve is controlled by a foot-button, 29, which is kept in closed position by a coil spring, 30. The specifications and accompanying drawing also show the operation of the three-way valve by the hand throttle lever on the steering wheel by means of a connecting rod, 31, attached to this hand throttle linkage. Manual operation of the brake by means of the usual foot brake lever is also possible by means of a lost motion slot, 19, at the lower end of this foot lever. Infringement of claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 of the Dickson patent was found by the District Court which also held that the specifications disclosed over the prior art an invention which was operable.

The Root patent1 relates to an improvement of the three-way valve indicated by Dickson. In the Dickson device the brakes could not be held, after having been slightly applied, unless the three-way valve was returned a short distance toward the open position, thus cutting off both the suction and the air from the brake cylinder, and thereby holding the piston in the position to which it had been moved. This required that the foot button or hand throttle lever be slightly released by the operator every time he desired to hold the brake. Root’s patent eliminated this additional and somewhat delicate movement by providing a valve which was automatically elosed by a movement of the piston and which held the vacuum until the suction was again introduced or air admitted to the brake cylinder. This result was achieved by using a follow-up element, 21, which was actuated by the piston itself, through a lever 22, so that when the suction was introduced and the piston moved, it automatically moved the follow-up slide to cover the suction aperture and hold the brake. Any additional movement of the foot button or hand lever (which are not shown by Root but which are adaptable to his device) would repeat this operation until the maximum braking effect had been obtained. The defense of noninfringe[849]*849ment of the Root patent was sustained by the lower court.

[848]

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

Related

Plasser American Corp. v. Canron, Inc.
546 F. Supp. 589 (D. South Carolina, 1980)
Monsanto Chemical Co. v. Coe
145 F.2d 18 (D.C. Circuit, 1944)
Christensen v. Bragg-Kliesrath Corp.
19 F. Supp. 496 (N.D. Indiana, 1937)
Alexander Anderson, Inc. v. Eastman
16 F. Supp. 513 (S.D. California, 1936)
Textile Mach. Works v. Louis Hirsch Textile Machines, Inc.
13 F. Supp. 476 (S.D. New York, 1936)
Ruben Condenser Co. v. Copeland Refrigeration Corp.
15 F. Supp. 261 (E.D. New York, 1935)
Bragg-Kliesrath Corp. v. Walter S. Vogel & Co.
3 F. Supp. 518 (E.D. New York, 1933)
Bragg-Kliesrath Corporation v. Farrell
36 F.2d 845 (Second Circuit, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 F.2d 845, 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 2272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bragg-kliesrath-corporation-v-farrell-ca2-1929.