Carson v. Bland

Decision Date10 July 1968
Docket NumberNo. 9329.,9329.
Citation398 F.2d 423
PartiesRaymond M. CARSON and Louis A. Rosproy, Appellants, v. Charles BLAND and B & D Distributing Co., Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Jerry J. Dunlap, Oklahoma City, Okl. (Dunlap & Laney, Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellants.

D. W. Falkenberg, Medford, Okl., Robert E. Shelton, Oklahoma City, Okl. (Savage, Gibson, Benefield & Shelton, Oklahoma City, Okl. on the brief), for appellees.

Before JONES*, BREITENSTEIN and SETH, Circuit Judges.

JONES, Circuit Judge:

The appellants, Raymond M. Carson and Louis A. Rosproy, brought this suit for infringement of United States Letters Patent No. 2,918,310 against B & D Distributing Company and Charles Bland, the president and sole shareholder of B & D. Carson is the inventor and owner of the patent; Rosproy is Carson's exclusive licensee. The appellees denied infringement and asserted that the patent was invalid. The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, sitting without a jury, found that the patent in suit had not been infringed and that the Carson patent was invalid. Our initial consideration is of the validity of the patent. McCullough Tool Co. v. Well Surveys, Inc., 10th Cir. 1965, 343 F.2d 381; Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Jones, 10th Cir. 1962, 308 F.2d 705.

The patented device, which is denominated "towing bar with wide-range hitch," provides a means by which two vehicles may be coupled in a rigid connection for towing purposes. This device is claimed to be an improvement over the traditional tow bar in that a suitable connection can be made even when the vehicle to be towed is not precisely positioned at the same level or at an exact distance behind the towing vehicle.

The Carson tow bar is comprised of an A-shaped frame, the wider end of which has a hinged connection to the bumper of the vehicle to be towed. When the device is not in use, it may be pivoted up on its hinges to a vertical position resting in front of the rear vehicle's grille. This pivoting feature allowes two vehicles to be connected even when they are not on the same level.

Because the side members of the A-frame do not quite converge, the front portion of the frame is truncated and open. Welded above and below this narrow portion are triangular plates which have the same dimensions as the front area of the frame. The addition of these plates creates a triangular-shaped socket which permits a hitching tongue to slide loosely either way through this open coupling member.

The front end of the tongue, which projects out of the A-frame through the triangular socket, may be equipped with any conventional type of hitching means which will cooperate with a similar hitching means on the rear of the towing vehicle. The opposite end of the tongue, which is at all times contained within the confines of the A-frame, is composed of a triangular-shaped head, the sides of which converge at the same angle as the side arms of the A-frame.

The operation of the Carson device is thus described in the appellants' brief:

"To place the device in operation, the towing vehicle is backed up into a position in front of the vehicle to be towed * * * the A-frame is pivoted downwardly to a generally horizontal position and the tongue is partially extended from the A-frame. The tongue may then be swung either right or left * * * to facilitate the connection of the forward end of the tongue to the hitch of the towing vehicle. It should further be noted that the tongue may also be extended to various lengths from the A-frame, and the A-frame may be raised or lowered during the hitching operation * * *.
"When the forward end of the tongue is connected to the hitch of the towing vehicle * * * the towing vehicle is simply driven forwardly. The tongue is thereby further extended from the A-frame until the head on the tongue engages the female coupling member on the forward end of the A-frame to then make a rigid hitching device from the forward end of the tongue to the rear end of the A-frame. In other words, when the head on the tongue engages the female coupling member, the tongue can not then be swung right or left with respect to the A-frame."

Another feature of the Carson device involves two latch accommodation slots that are positioned on the hitching tongue so as to permit their cooperation with a conventional spring-biased latch fixture situated on top of the socket of the A-frame. When the tongue is drawn forward away from the vehicle to be towed and the head of the tongue is wedged snugly against the face of the socket, the latch automatically engages a slot in the tongue so that the tongue may not be retracted during a towing operation. A similar latch connection is formed when the tongue is fully retracted within the A-frame.

At the trial of this cause it was shown that none of the individual components of Carson's device are novel. The testimony of Carson and his expert established that the A-frame, the sliding telescopic tongue, the swinging tongue, and the wedged fitting are all old elements in the prior art. Also, the defendants submitted, and the court admitted, evidence illustrating the previous development of the wagon tongue principle. In describing the operation of an old wagon hitch, Mr. Bland testified: "They used the oak bent hound1 which we see here or an A-frame hound, either one, and put a wedge-shaped tongue in it * * * it says in here that the pull is transferred through the wedge-shaped tongue to the hound."

In addition to the foregoing, several patents cited by the patent examiner further indicate the state of the prior art. The prior art patent, Holder No. 2,845,281, discloses a hitching device which, like the Carson patent, is designed to afford maneuverability, adjustability, and the capability of self-alignment through the use of cooperating coupling members equipped with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Eimco Corporation v. Peterson Filters and Engineering Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • March 17, 1969
    ...art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness or non-obviousness of the subject matter is determined." See also Carson v. Bland, 10 Cir., 398 F.2d 423. In determining the Section 103 issue the trial court made the inquiry as to the obviousness or non-obviousness of the subject matt......
  • Ohio Citizens Trust Company v. Lear Jet Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • April 7, 1969
    ...need not be considered because an invalid patent cannot be infringed.7 Affirmed. 1 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, and 103. 2 Carson v. Bland, 10 Cir., 398 F.2d 423, 426. See also Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84, 92, 62 S.Ct. 37, 86 L.Ed. 58. 3 Great Atlantic & Pacific......
  • Cyclo Floor Machine Corp. v. National Housewares, Inc., C 155-66.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Utah
    • September 20, 1968
    ...skill and is not patentable. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545; Carson and Rosproy v. Bland and B & D Distributing Co., 398 F.2d 423 (10th Cir. 1968); Hutchinson Mfg. Co. v. Mayrath, 192 F.2d 110 (10th Cir. 1951); and Richards & Conover v. Leishman, 172 ......
  • Hinde v. Hot Sulphur Springs, Colorado, 72-1878.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • August 14, 1973
    ...Corporation, 296 F.2d 708 (10th Cir. 1961), the issue of obviousness must be resolved on the basis of factual inquiries. Carson v. Bland, 398 F.2d 423 (10th Cir. 1968). The trial court addressed itself to the issue of obviousness in the following Defendant\'s final challenge to the validity......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT