Wirebounds Patents Co. v. SARANAC AUTOMATIC MACH. CORP.

• Citation: 24 F.2d 872
• Decision Date: 09 July 1927
• Docket Number: No. 2029.,2029.
• Parties: WIREBOUNDS PATENTS CO. et al. v. SARANAC AUTOMATIC MACH. CORPORATION.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

24 F.2d 872 (1927)

WIREBOUNDS PATENTS CO. et al. v. SARANAC AUTOMATIC MACH. CORPORATION.

No. 2029.

District Court, W. D. Michigan, S. D.

July 9, 1927.

Knappen, Uhl & Bryant, of Grand Rapids, Mich., and Emery, Booth, Janney & Varney, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.

Rice & Rice, of Grand Rapids, Mich., and Cheever & Cox, of Chicago, Ill., for defendant.

RAYMOND, District Judge.

The three patents in suit relate to two machines and a method for producing wirebound boxes. These were issued February 9, 1915, to Inwood and Lavenberg, and are No. 1,128,144 for "combined carriage and former for wirebound box machines," application filed October 14, 1904, referred to hereinafter as the workholder patent; No. 1,128,145, for "means for making box blanks," application filed October 27, 1904, referred to hereinafter as stapling machine patent; and No. 1,128,252, for "method of making boxes," application filed April 21, 1914, hereinafter referred to as the method patent, this patent being a division of the workholder patent. An expired patent necessarily involved in this controversy resulted from invention substantially contemporaneous with the others, and was issued upon a wirebound box which was the product of the above-mentioned patents. This application was filed October 17, 1904, patent issued September 19, 1905, and reissued November 26, 1907, as No. 12,725.

Plaintiffs are the owner and exclusive licensee, respectively, of the patents in suit. The defendant is the manufacturer and lessor or licensor of machinery for making wirebound boxes.

The history of the prior art briefly stated discloses that for a period of about 10 years prior to these inventions a series of inventors (known for convenience as the Rosback inventors) had endeavored to produce a box to replace the nailed box then in general use; the principal object sought being to combine strength, lightness, flexibility, possibility of use of cheap materials, and economical production. These efforts resulted in failure, although it is evident that the conception was present that thin veneer and cleats might be co-ordinated with wire in some manner to produce the desired result. The nearest approach to success was the use of a single sheet of selected veneer, long enough to supply the four sides of the box, assembled with cleat material of substantially the same length. Wire was stapled to this single veneer sheet, thereby producing a rigid blank, which was pushed through a step-mitering machine, which cut the cleat strips into four lengths, trimmed the two ends of the blanks, and simultaneously step-mitered the respective cleat ends and lightly scored the long veneer sheet along the folding lines to facilitate bending. This method produced a box which was light and strong, but which lacked flexibility and elasticity.

The substantial obstacles encountered, however, were the impossibility of automatic or partly automatic production and the checking and occasional breaking of the veneer sheets at or near the corners of the boxes. The comparison of the method and results produced by the Rosback inventors and that of Inwood and Lavenberg is concisely stated in the specifications of the box patent as follows:

"The present method of manufacturing wirebound boxes is to form the blank of a single sheet stitched or stapled to single piece cleats for each end of the box, the cleats being step-mitered and the sheets scored or grooved on the underside, so as to form four sections, after the cleats, sheets, and reinforcing wires have been stapled together. This box blank, when folded, forms a rounding edge; the veneer sheets, if not thoroughly seasoned so as to have pliability, begin to check as the lumber seasons. As the grain of the wood may be diagonal to the edge of the box, the check will follow the grain, thus rendering the box unsightly, besides a possible opening of a size so as to preclude its use for goods requiring a tight-jointed box. * * *

"Our invention relates to certain improvements in wirebound boxes, especially of that class in which the blanks constituting the four sides of the box are assembled and secured in relative position to each other prior to folding by reinforcing wires, and has for its object the assembling and fastening together such parts constituting the completed blank so that the same when folded will produce overlapping edges of the side sheets or boards, the advantages of which will be hereafter pointed out."

The underlying concept of the patents in suit is stated by plaintiffs to be the mechanical positioning of cleats and sheets in coordinated foldable relationships, so that the immediate product of the machine shall be the foldable blank having relationships and coordination of its parts in the finished box definitely predetermined. This is accomplished by the assembly of cleats and sheets upon a workholder in relationship to each other determined by mechanical positioning devices, these relationships being perpetuated by binding wires and staples. Rosback and his associates propelled raw material strips through a blank machine to produce a rigid blank, which had to be made foldable at a subsequent step by means of a step-mitering machine. Plaintiffs' expert states the comparison concisely as follows:

"The Rosback practices had...