Herman Body Co. v. St. Louis Body & Equipment Co.

• Decision Date: 11 February 1931
• Docket Number: No. 8925.,8925.
• Citation: 46 F.2d 879
• Parties: HERMAN BODY CO. et al. v. ST. LOUIS BODY & EQUIPMENT CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

46 F.2d 879 (1931)

HERMAN BODY CO. et al. v. ST. LOUIS BODY & EQUIPMENT CO. et al.

No. 8925.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

February 11, 1931.

Arthur C. Eckert, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellants.

Howard G. Cook, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellees.

Before Stone and Booth, Circuit Judges, and Dewey, District Judge.

DEWEY, District Judge.

Letters patent No. 1,438,664, on truck frames, were issued to William R. Rogers on the 12th day of December, 1922, and upon an application filed by him on the 24th day of November, 1920.

Upon bill of complaint alleging that the patent was being infringed, the defendants set up claims that the patent was invalid because it was anticipated by the prior art, lacked patentable novelty, and, if limited to the structure illustrated and described in the patent, its own device did not infringe.

The trial court declared noninfringement without passing on the question of validity, and plaintiffs appealed.

Appellants strenuously urge that the presumption of validity here obtains, and that the question of validity cannot here be reviewed, as the trial court expressed no opinion thereon, and as there is no cross-appeal by appellees and no assignments of error by appellants that here raise the question of validity. Appellants in support of their contention submit the following cases: American Tube Works v. Bridgewater Iron Co. (C. C. A.) 132 F. 16; Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. (C. C. A.) 272 F. 386; Schrader's Sons v. Wein Sales Corporation (C. C. A.) 9 F.(2d) 306; Dickinson Tire & Machine Co. v. Dickinson et al. (C. C. A.) 29 F.(2d) 493. The appellees on the other hand cite the following authorities in support of their claim that an appellate court is not limited by the scope of the decision of the court below, but will consider all matters material to the question of validity and infringement where those questions are in issue: U. S. Consol. Seeded Raisin Co. v. Selma Fruit Co. (C. C. A.) 195 F. 264; Reliable Incubator & Brooder Co. v. Stahl (C. C. A.) 105 F. 663; De Laski & Thropp Circular Woven Tire Co. v. United States Tire Co. (C. C. A.) 235 F. 290; American Rotary Valve Co. v. Moorehead (C. C. A.) 226 F. 202; Reynolds Spring Co. v. L. A. Young Industries, Inc. (C. C. A.) 36 F.(2d) 150. The cases cited by appellants are not directly in point, and we do not stop to analyze the several authorities cited by the parties, as this question has been in effect determined adversely to appellants' contention in the case of Tropic-Aire, Inc., v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 44 F.(2d) 580 (8 C. C. A.), opinion filed September 5, 1930. Notwithstanding the trial court there held that certain claims were so limited by the prior art that appellee's device was not an infringement thereof and notwithstanding no cross-appeal was taken therefrom, this court passed upon the question of nonvalidity and determined the review on that question.

Two claims only are within the letters patent No. 1,438,664. They are identical, except that the first claim refers to "an integral rectangular frame of L section" and limits the securing of the floor to the frame by rivets and secures the floor boards by bolts to the cross-sills. The second claim is therefore broader in omitting these limitations, and we shall consider it as the claim in suit. Claim 2 reads as follows: "In a vehicle bed, an integral rectangular frame having its ends welded together, a floor secured to the frame, bumpers and stake pockets secured to said frame, cross-sills secured at their ends to said frame, said floor secured to said cross-sills, risers, said cross-sills having an I section and secured to said risers transversely, sub-sills secured to said risers, chassis, the risers and sub-sills secured to said chassis and cross-sills by means of straps."

The normal construction of appellant Rogers' patent, as shown by the illustration and specifications of said letters patent, No. 1,438,664, comprises in a vehicle bed an integral rectangular frame having its ends welded together. Bumpers and stake pockets are secured to the frame by bolts or rivets. On the frame is a floor secured by bolts or otherwise, the frame resting upon cross-sills, such as I beams, and these cross-sills secured to the frame by means of angle irons and hangers. Angle irons are also provided for the rear of the frame as an additional means of strengthening the body. These cross-sills are positioned on longitudinal risers, which are also preferably I beams, and these risers, two in number, are also secured at each end of the frame. The longitudinal beams are positioned on sub-sills which are in turn positioned on the chassis. The chassis member is a U section, and the chassis member, the sub-sill positioned thereon, the riser positioned thereon, and a cross-sill are held together at convenient places by means of a U strap which terminates in two threaded ends positioned in holes in the flange of the cross-sill and secured by a plate on top of the flange through which the ends of the U strap pass and held secured by nuts, thus securely binding these several members together.

All the elements of plaintiffs' patent are old, and the prior art shows very definitely body beds and body foundations for automobile trucks comprising all of the elements of plaintiffs' combination, but not all of such...