Kennatrack Corporation v. Stanley Works

• Decision Date: 01 March 1963
• Docket Number: No. 13634.,13634.
• Citation: 314 F.2d 164
• Parties: KENNATRACK CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The STANLEY WORKS, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

314 F.2d 164 (1963)

KENNATRACK CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The STANLEY WORKS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13634.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

March 1, 1963.

Roy E. Petherbridge, Charles W. Bradley, Jr., Fidler, Beardsley & Bradley, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

George N. Hibben, Chicago, Ill., T. Clay Lindsey, Peter L. Costas, Hartford, Conn., for appellee.

Before SCHNACKENBERG, KNOCH and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges.

KNOCH, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff, Kennatrack Corporation (sometimes herein called "Kennatrack"), brought this action to enjoin infringement of its United States Letters Patent No. 2,732,919, for a sliding door frame assembly, and to recover damages therefor. The Trial Court, sitting without a jury, granted judgment for defendant, and this appeal followed. Plaintiff contends that the Trial Court erred in concluding that the patent in suit was invalid and not infringed by defendant, The Stanley Works (sometimes herein called "Stanley"), in its manufacture and sale of a pocket-door frame designated Stanley frame model No. 2825.

From 1945 until early in 1952, Kennatrack manufactured and sold sliding door hardware (metal tracks, sliding door hangers and nylon rollers) for suspending sliding doors and enabling them to move across the tracks, and other accessory items. Early in 1951, Kennatrack began development of a complete pocket-door frame unit. A "pocket-door" opens by recessing into a pocket in the wall, as distinguished from a by-passing door, which opens by sliding one section of the door past the other.

In installing a pocket-door unit, the frame, on which the door will be slidably mounted, is first inserted into a rough opening of the wall, usually while the building is still under construction, and later covered completely by appropriate wall covering material.

Plaintiff's "Kennaframe" pocket-door frame unit was announced at the January 1952 National Home Builders Association Show in Chicago, where it received much favorable comment. The patent application was filed by Leonard E. Johnson, Jr., plaintiff's assignor, on June 24, 1952. The Kennaframe is not the first pocket-door frame conceived or marketed, but it has met with marked commercial success.

Three competitors charged with infringement of the patent in suit took licenses under it. A fourth competitor was defendant herein, which, on the basis of the developing market decided some time prior to January 1956, to produce its own pocket-door frame. The first sales were made in December 1956.

Kennatrack asserts that the District Court's finding of fact No. 27, as to non-infringement, and finding of fact No. 28, regarding file wrapper estoppel, are clearly erroneous. On the theory that no oral testimony was submitted on the issue of infringement, Kennatrack argues that the "documentary rule" applies to expand the scope of review so that these findings of fact may be set aside even if our own study of the documentary evidence indicates the findings to be not "clearly erroneous" but merely incorrect.

Kennatrack also characterizes as erroneous, conclusions of law Nos. 2 and 4, holding the patent in suit to be invalid.

In addition to the documentary evidence, there was oral testimony, and numerous demonstrations of physical models were made in the course of the trial. Where the findings are based on visual observation of physical demonstrations in Court, we must make allowances for the advantages enjoyed by the trial Court "where the evidence is largely the testimony of experts as to which a trial court may be enlightened by scientific demonstrations." Graver Tank Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co., 336 U.S. 271, 274-275, 69 S.Ct. 535, 537-538, 93 L.Ed. 672, as quoted by Judge Major speaking for this Court in Hazeltine Research v. Admiral Corp., 1950, 183 F.2d 953, 954.

The Johnson patent in suit claims:

"1. A pocket door frame for insertion in a rough opening of a wall defined by a floor and two spaced vertical studs, comprising, a transverse header member comprising a downwardly open channel member and a track member disposed within such channel member, said channel and track members being designed to support the weight of a door, said header member being of such length that when horizontally disposed its ends will engage the opposed faces of said studs, such ends having fastening means adapted to be shifted vertically to adjust the header member into said horizontal position, a split jamb member attached to the said header member at substantially the mid-point of the latter, said jamb member comprising two vertical outwardly facing channel members having a transverse tie between their lower ends provided with a foot plate for supporting the jamb member on the floor, the outwardly facing channel members having means for the attachment of wall covering materials thereto and having means pivotally connecting them to said header member at their upper ends, each of said channel members having a vertical slot at its pivotal connection to said header member such that the lower end of the split jamb member may be swung in the vertical plane of said header member to bring the same into vertical plumb position and thereafter fixed to the floor, whereby the essential requirements of leveling the header member and plumbing the split jamb member may be performed by a workman in installing the device.

"2. The combination of claim 1, in which a second split jamb member is provided for stiffening walls of a door pocket defined by the frame device and comprising a pair of channels back-to-back, each having a vertical slot at its upper end whereat such is pivoted on the header member at a position substantially midway of the length of the door pocket, the said channels having a transverse tie between their lower ends including a foot plate, said second jamb member being swingable also in the plane of the header member independently of the first said split jamb member, with the said foot plate at its lower end attachable to the floor whereby the second split jamb member may serve to reinforce and maintain the spacing of the walls of the door pocket."

Two embodiments are shown. In one the inverted U-shaped header element is formed of metal with a horizontally adjustable bracket at one end. The other embodiment has a wooden inverted U-shaped channel element with no adjustable bracket. It requires "shimming" at the ends of the header to fit it in the rough door opening. A "shim" is a thin wedge used for filling space, leveling, etc. In the wooden embodiment, the depending walls of the header are grooved to accommodate the upper ends of the split jamb and split stud channel members.

In both embodiments a separate U-shaped track member is located inside and secured to the top wall of the U-shaped channel member.

The claims however are not limited to wood or metal headers and make no specific reference to either wood or metal.

The Trial Judge found as a matter of fact that plaintiff originally in 1952 marketed a pocket frame with a header channel entirely composed of wood. The all-metal header model followed shortly. In its advertising plaintiff referred to both as warp proof. In his testimony on cross-examination, Robert C. Fara, Kennatrack's plant manager, stated that the warp proof quality was attributable to the split jambs.

As the Trial Judge found, the patent in suit was not of pioneer quality but in a crowded art, and whatever advance made was of a very narrow character. If a valid patent had issued ...