Home/Sixth Circuit/American Seating Company, Cross-Appellee v. National Seating Company, Cross-Appellant

American Seating Company, Cross-Appellee v. National Seating Company, Cross-Appellant

586 F.2d 611, 199 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 257, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 9001
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 15, 1978
Docket76-2625, 76-2626
StatusPublished
Cited by31 cases

This text of 586 F.2d 611 (American Seating Company, Cross-Appellee v. National Seating Company, Cross-Appellant) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
American Seating Company, Cross-Appellee v. National Seating Company, Cross-Appellant, 586 F.2d 611, 199 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 257, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 9001 (6th Cir. 1978).

Opinion

WEICK, Circuit Judge.

This action was brought in the District Court by American Seating Company (American) against National Seating Company (National) for the infringement of its U.S. Letters Patent No. 3,729,226 (’226), entitled “Single Pedestal Transit Chair.” National, in its answer, pleaded the invalidity of the patent and denied infringement, and counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement.

*613 In a well-written opinion District Judge Contie held that the patent was invalid under: (1) 35 U.S.C. § 102, because it was anticipated by the prior art; (2) 35 U.S.C. § 103, because it was obvious to those skilled in the art at the time of its invention; and (3) 35 U.S.C. § 112, because it failed to describe particularly that which was claimed to be invented. Furthermore the District Court found that the patent, if valid, was infringed by some of National’s seat models, but was not infringed by other National seat models.

Both parties appealed. American has appealed from those portions of the District Court’s judgment which held the patent invalid and which found that certain of National’s seat models did not infringe upon the patent. National has cross-appealed from the District Court’s findings of infringement.

We affirm, holding the patent invalid, and therefore it is not necessary that we reach the issues of infringement.

I

The ’226 patent relates to a passenger bus seat. The device was invented around April, 1970, by Charles A. Barecki, an employee of American. The patent application (which application was assigned by Barecki to American) was filed in the U.S. Patent Office on June 4, 1971, and the patent was issued on April 24,1973. American and National, at the time of suit, were the sole American manufacturers of intercity passenger bus seats. 1

The ’226 patent (see diagram 1) discloses a center pedestal seat. The patent claims 2 show two side-by-side seats (11 and 12) mounted on a beam (13). The beam is attached to the wall of a bus by an angle iron (14). The beam is supported approximately midway between the seats by a pedestal shaped in the form of an inverted “T”. The pedestal is composed of a single upright column (15) and a tubular foot (16), which foot extends fore and aft of the bus. The ends (17) of the foot are cut away at a 45° angle to provide access openings to the fastening bolts (19) used to secure the foot to the floor. The access openings can be covered by end caps (20). The end caps are held in place by a U-shaped spring plate (23), which has two shoulder rivets or lugs (21) snapped into receiving holes (22).

[See following illustration.]

*614

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

Related

Gillette Co. v. Warner-Lambert Co.
690 F. Supp. 115 (D. Massachusetts, 1988)
Roberts v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
665 F. Supp. 671 (N.D. Illinois, 1987)
Alco Standard Corporation v. Tennessee Valley Authority
808 F.2d 1490 (Federal Circuit, 1986)
Alco Standard Corp. v. Tennessee Valley Authority
808 F.2d 1490 (Federal Circuit, 1986)
Kwik-Site Corporation v. Clear View Manufacturing Company, Inc.
758 F.2d 167 (Sixth Circuit, 1985)
Kwik-Site Corp. v. Clear View Manufacturing Co.
758 F.2d 167 (Sixth Circuit, 1985)
Hart-Carter Co. v. J.P. Burroughs & Son, Inc.
605 F. Supp. 1327 (E.D. Michigan, 1985)
Alco Standard Corp. v. Tennessee Valley Authority
597 F. Supp. 133 (W.D. Tennessee, 1984)
Carella v. Starlight Archery
595 F. Supp. 613 (E.D. Michigan, 1984)
Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.
587 F. Supp. 1406 (E.D. Michigan, 1984)
Johns-Manville Corp. v. Guardian Industries Corp.
586 F. Supp. 1034 (E.D. Michigan, 1983)
Stewart-Warner Corporation, Cross-Appellee v. The City of Pontiac, Michigan, and American Sign & Indicator Corporation, Cross-Appellants
717 F.2d 269 (Sixth Circuit, 1983)
Radio Steel & Mfg. Co. v. MTD Products Inc.
566 F. Supp. 609 (N.D. Ohio, 1983)
Armco, Inc. v. Republic Steel Corporation, Whitaker & Merrell Co., Watson Podiak & Associates, Inc.
707 F.2d 886 (Sixth Circuit, 1983)
Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.
561 F. Supp. 618 (E.D. Michigan, 1982)
Nippon Elec. Glass Co., Ltd. v. Sheldon
539 F. Supp. 542 (S.D. New York, 1982)
Tri-Collar, Inc. v. Reamco, Inc.
538 F. Supp. 669 (W.D. Louisiana, 1982)
Dollar Electric Company, and Cross-Appellee v. Syndevco, Inc., and Ford Motor Company, and Cross-Appellants
669 F.2d 1370 (Sixth Circuit, 1982)
USM Corp. v. Detroit Plastic Molding Co.
536 F. Supp. 890 (E.D. Michigan, 1982)
Dollar Electric Co. v. Syndevco, Inc.
688 F.2d 429 (Sixth Circuit, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
586 F.2d 611, 199 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 257, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 9001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-seating-company-cross-appellee-v-national-seating-company-ca6-1978.