User:Bobby Powers

My Patent

Patent Number: 4292795

• Electro-mechanical locomotive bell ringing apparatus for quick and easy replacement of existing pneumatic bell ringing systems

In the summer of 2010, I worked at GE Transportation testing locomotive diesel engines. Many days I found myself firing up the large diesel engines and hearing the bell of the locomotive ring out.

• Patent Description: This patent is for an electro-mechanically operated locomotive bell ringing apparatus which is mounted within a bell and attached to an existing bell striker. A switch on Engineers Console triggers a timer energizing a coil to move the striker against the bell. Found using PatentStorm [1].

Examining the Patent in accordance to Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb, A. & P. Tea Co. v Supermarket Corp., and Hotchkiss v. Greenwood

References: Patent 4706037 – Soft Contact Solenoid Contractor (http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4706037.html)

The U.S. Supreme Court case of A. & P. Co. v. Supermarket Corp. investigated the validity of a patent when the invention is considered merely a combination of the parts. In this case the supermarket cashier’s counter was considered useful and novel, but because there was nothing actually “inventive” about the counter, there was no merit to the patent. The court argued that an invention which is a combination of parts must amount to more than just the summation of the parts (i.e. 2 + 2 must equal 5, not just 4). The case goes as far as listing all of the undeserved patents that the court had issued with loose standards of “inventiveness”.

In the same manner, the U.S. Supreme Court case of Hotchkiss v. Greenwood investigated a patent for a clay doorknob saying that it was invalid. The court argued that nothing about the invention was new. “The knob was not new, nor the metallic shank and spindle, nor the dovetail form of the cavity in the knob, nor the means by which the metallic shank was securely fastened therein. Knobs had also been used of clay”. The court ruled that it was a mere substitution of materials.

Under the standards of these previous U.S. Supreme Court decisions, I believe the patent for Electro-mechanical locomotive bell ringing apparatus would still be valid. Certainly locomotive bells had been used before, and solenoid magnets had been used to move metallic masses. However, this unique combination added value to the invention by eliminating a myriad of functional issues that accompanied standard pneumatic bell ringing systems that were in use that the time. Patent 4706037 for a Soft Contact Solenoid Contractor, which was issued a year earlier, discusses the movement of an armature, but the Electromechanical Bell Ringer adds an “inventive” dimension by using the solenoid to ring a bell, along with all the circuitry and controls that accompany this action.

link titleIn the United Sates Court of Appeals Second Circuit case of Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb, the court investigates the validity of a patent for an optical coating method. The court argued that “If an improvement is to obtain the privileged position of a patent more ingenuity must be involved than the work of a mechanic skilled in the art.” Because it was known that the method was practiced by other mechanics in the field, it was not considered an inventive method. Some testified that they did not even think that the method was effective, and that is why they had personally discontinued use of the method.

Under these standards of the courts, it would be more difficult to argue that the Electro-mechanical bell ringer was something that a “mechanic skilled in the art” could not have designed. At the same time though, the need for a new bell ringing system had certainly been present for a long time. If this is the case, then why had someone else not already invented it? Without the appropriately technical background it is difficult to determine a verdict for this case.