Saunders v. Air Flo Co., AIR-FLO
| Decision Date | 27 May 1981 |
| Docket Number | AIR-FLO,No. 77-2014,77-2014 |
| Citation | 646 F.2d 1201 |
| Parties | W. Selden SAUNDERS and Rudkin-Wiley Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.COMPANY, Robert G. Geiger, and Recreational Supply and Equipment, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Peter C. John, Chicago, Ill., Francis T. Carr, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Eugene C. Knoblock, South Bend, Ind., for defendants-appellees.
Before FAIRCHILD, Chief Judge, CASTLE, Senior Circuit Judge, and SWYGERT, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs in this action appeal from the district court judgment 1 of invalidity of Patents No. 3,241,876 ('876) (application filed January 31, 1964 and patent issued March 22, 1966) and 3,309,131 ('131) (application filed February 11, 1966 and patent issued March 14, 1967) and of non-infringement by defendants of the patents. 2
W. Selden Saunders (Saunders) is the patentee and owner of patents 3 product had not infringed the Saunders patents. 4
The Saunders device is a baffle mounted above the roof of the cab of a tractor of a semi-trailer in the case of '876 5 and of a truck in the case of '131. 6 The purpose is to As stated in the application for '876,
divert the air flow so that it will not strike the front of the trailer or truck body and will reattach smoothly to the top of the trailer or body. In the case of the semi-trailer the diversion also avoids entry of the air stream into the gap between tractor and trailer, and a low pressure air eddy occurs in the gap. The advantage is that the air drag is less than would occur if the air flow struck the face of the trailer without being deflected by the baffle. Fuel consumption is reduced.
'the device of the instant invention produces a relatively wide diffusion of the air impacting the forward portion of the trailer, and causes the same to readhere to the body of the (trailer) rearwardly of the front portion thereof in a relatively smooth and even manner, while at the same time creating a low pressure area or bubble between the tractor and the front of the trailer, so that the trailer will, in effect, be pushing forward against reduced rather than increased resistance.'
Claims 1 and 2 of '876 position the baffle forward of the face of the trailer at a distance approximately 0.7 of the half-width of the trailer. The baffle is inclined rearwardly, and forwardly convexed in a horizontal plane. Its height is substantially 0.7 of the difference in height between the tractor roof and the trailer. Most of the claims of '131 position the baffle at the top of the windshield and do not state a formula for height.
35 U.S.C. § 102 contains the requirement of novelty for a patent. The district court found that "(t)he respective combinations and arrangements of parts shown in the Stamm patent and in the University of Maryland (UM) publications are the same as those claimed in the Saunders patents, and hence are effective anticipations under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) " 435 F.Supp. at 300. The district court erred in finding anticipation. Its key error in this regard was its view that because the Saunders baffle, the UM fairing and the Stamm conduit each can be said to deflect air, the fairing and conduit anticipated the Saunders patents. As this court has indicated, "(a) previous patent anticipates a purported invention only where, except for insubstantial differences, it contains all of the same elements operating in the same fashion to perform an identical function." Popeil Brothers, Inc. v. Schick Electric, Inc., 494 F.2d 162, 164 (7th Cir. 1974). Accord, Reynolds Metals Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 609 F.2d 1218, 1220 (7th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 989, 100 S.Ct. 2976, 64 L.Ed.2d 847 (1980); Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Sweetheart Plastics, Inc., 436 F.2d 1180, 1182-83 (7th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 403 U.S. 942, 91 S.Ct. 2270, 29 L.Ed.2d 722 (1971). The differences between Stamm and UM, on one hand, and Saunders on the other, are A patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness "if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains." 35 U.S.C. § 103. The district court considered the Stamm patent, the University of Maryland tests, and several bug deflector patents and other known principles in determining that the Saunders patents were invalid for obviousness.
substantial and are shown infra in the discussion regarding obviousness.
As the district court recognized, the analytical steps for determining obviousness are set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966).
While the ultimate question of patent validity is one of law, A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., (340 U.S. 147 (1950)) supra, at 155, (71 S.Ct. 129, at 131, 95 L.Ed. 162) the § 103 condition, which is but one of three conditions, each of which must be satisfied, lends itself to several basic factual inquiries. Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unresolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented. As indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquiries may have relevancy.
383 U.S. at 17-18, 86 S.Ct. at 693-694.
Crucial to the question of validity of the Saunders patents is an understanding of the aerodynamic devices under consideration: fairings, conduits, and baffles. Aerodynamicists have long recognized that reduction of aerodynamic drag (air drag) of a vehicle will increase efficiency and save fuel. We must now view the scope and content of the prior art considered by the district court.
The University of Maryland conducted over 7,000 wind tunnel tests of Trailmobile trailers in 1953 to determine whether various devices or design changes would reduce air drag. The tests were of "trailer bodies with rounded front corners, rounded rear corners, various tractor-trailer gaps, streamlined tail fairing for trailer, deflecting vanes and the removal of underneath accessories and cross members." The tests were all concerned with methods of streamlining, so as to keep the air passing the trailer attached to it in order to avoid areas of air turbulence and reduce air drag. One of the methods used was attaching a full fairing 7 from the tractor to the trailer so that the air hitting the tractor cab and fairing would remain attached and flow along the fairing until it reached the top front of the trailer, from which point the air would then proceed along the top of the trailer to the rear, remaining attached. The fairing eliminated the gap between the tractor and the trailer, enclosing it entirely. The UM study recognized that such a fairing would be impractical because it would prevent the tractor from turning independently of the trailer, but concluded that "a fairing approaching this type that does not attach to the trailer may not be unreasonable."
The Stamm patent, No. 2,863,695, applied for in 1954, issued December 9, 1958, discloses that Stamm considered the conclusions reached after comprehensive wind tunnel tests (evidently the UM tests) including the reduction of drag which would result from streamlining, and the infeasibility of enclosing the space between the tractor and trailer. He directed his attention to providing a device which would control the air flow between the tractor "the cab conduit or shell member will cause airstream flow along the top and sides of the cab to be directed rearwardly in such a fashion that it will be directed into the trailer-mounted conduit shell member and thereafter discharged along the top and sides of the trailer body in a fashion that tends to reduce airstream turblence and thereby reduce drag losses."
and trailer so as to significantly reduce the drag losses that normally result from the air flow turbulence in this region. His solution was a conduit type means on the rear top and side portions of the tractor cab, receiving the airstream passing over the tractor cab and guiding and discharging the airstream toward the top and side portions of the front end of the trailer. Alternatively he would, in addition, provide conduit means on the surface portions of the trailer to receive the airstream after it left the conduit on the tractor and discharge it along the surface of the trailer. As Stamm described one embodiment, in part:
(References to drawings omitted.)
There is no evidence that the Stamm device was ever effectively used.
The Examiner cited as references in '876 Stamm, Huet U.S. No. 2,234,906 (1941), and Rix Great Britain No. 734,735 (1955). A summary of the conclusions of the University of Maryland tests was set forth in Stamm.
Huet in part discloses deflecting devices...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Business Systems, Inc. v. AM Intern., Inc., 82-2393
...printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.... In Saunders v. Air-Flo Co., 646 F.2d 1201, 1203 (7th Cir.1981), this court described the strict standards for anticipation under section "A previous patent ... anticipates a purpor......
-
Dickey-john Corp. v. International Tapetronics Corp.
...is appropriate. Our hypothetical friend needs to be somewhat eclectic, but not the proverbial renaissance man. See Saunders v. Air-Flo Co., 646 F.2d 1201, 1207 (7th Cir.1981) (regarding patent for air baffle to reduce wind drag on truck, hypothetical artisan deemed expert in truck design bu......
-
Marcyan v. Nissen Corp.
...U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966); Harvestall v. Hochstetler, 656 F.2d 1232, 1235 (7th Cir. 1981); Saunders et al. v. Air-Flo Co., 646 F.2d 1201, 1204 (7th Cir.1981). The prior art was considered against the backdrop of the two claims here in suit. Claims 7 and 8 contain the follo......
-
Grout Shield Distribs., LLC v. Elio E. Salvo, Inc.
...for vehicles.” Saunders v. Air–Flo Co., 435 F.Supp. 298, 306, 196 U.S.P.Q. 168, 175 (TTAB 1977), rev'd in part on other grounds, 646 F.2d 1201 (7th Cir.1981). In sum, whether a proposed trademark is descriptive or suggestive depends on the analysis of the entire trademark, not just a partic......
-
Markman Twenty Years Later: Twenty Years of Unintended Consequences
...secure to the patentee his actual invention." (emphasis added)). 152. Cases from the regional circuits include: Saunders v. Air-Flo Co., 646 F.2d 1201, 1206 (7th Cir. 1981); Dickstein v. Seventy Corp., 522 F.2d 1294, 1297 (6th Cir. 1975); Gen. Tire and Rubber Co. v. Firestone Tire and Rubbe......