Image shows a display inside the Pembroke Stationery Company store. Yawman & Erbe MFG tanker desk from the early 1900s. Manufactured in Rochester New York! Yawman and Erbe Manufacturing Company Yawman and Erbe Manufacturing Company filed as a Foreign For- Profit Corporation in the State of Texas and is no longer active. This corporate entity was filed approximately sixty- two years ago on Tuesday, November 1, 1.

1. Yawman And Erbe Manufacturing Company

Yawman and Erbe Manufacturing Company (plaintiff-appellee) brought this action for infringement by Cole Steel Equipment Company, Inc. (defendant-appellant) of Letters Patent 2,263,204 (referred to as 'the patent') issued to plaintiff. From an interlocutory judgment and decree in plaintiff's favor declaring the patent valid in law and infringed by defendant, dismissing the defense of laches on the merits and referring the computation of damages between September 8, 1949 and November 18, 1958 to a Special Master, defendant appeals. On July 12, 1954 plaintiff's attorney wrote concerning 'resume infringement' which evoked a reply disclaiming infringement of 'any valid claim of the Clark patent' and asserting that the claims were invalid. The dispute by correspondence continued through 1954 and 1955 when suit was finally commenced on September 8, 1955.

Defendant's answer was filed on December 20, 1955 but the note of issue for trial was not filed until June 19, 1957. The trial took place in October 1958. On November 18, 1958 and before decision the patent expired. The patent in question purported to cover an invention and improvements in the method of furniture top construction. In essence the claims to invention embrace the placement of 'corner caps' and 'binding strips' around the curved margins of the top surface of desks, tables, and other similar articles of furniture. These caps and strips serve the mechanical function of better securing a protective linoleum top surface to the downwardly curving outer edges of a desk or table frame.

In addition a decorative and more finished effect is obtained. The lower part of the binding strip has a horizontal metal web or tongue which runs the length of the binding strip.

This web is forced into a tight horizontal recess or narrow opening between two pieces of metal which are part of the desk or table frame. The friction created by the snugness of the fit causes the binding strip to be held tightly to the frame. This method of frictional engagement of the binding strip to the frame does not appear to have been used in any of the prior patents in this area. If there be patentable novelty it must be found in this idea. Some of the representative prior patents set up by the defendant as anticipatory of the Clark patent are: Brainard No.

1,649,805 (1927), Soper No. 1,815,167 (1931), Hunter No. 1,822,032 (1931), Wege No. 1,969,489 (1934), and Hunter No. 2,032,878 (1936).

In the Brainard patent, the binding strip was welded to the frame; the Soper binding strip was affixed to the frame by a clamping strip; and in the Hunter patents the binding strips were either welded or bolted to the frames. Although the Wege patent teaches the method of inserting the binding strip into a groove, it is not held there by friction but rather by indentations punched into and through the flanges. It may be assumed that the prior patents did not anticipate the frictional engagement used in the Clark patent but this fact is not determinative unless this element satisfied the test of the statute (35 U.S.C.A.

Reduced to its simplest terms 'frictional engagement' here is merely the holding together of two objects by means of forcing a projection on one object into a constricted opening on the other. Although this idea may not be quite so generic as the 'wheel' nevertheless it is a common principle of mechanics known to every craftsman. It is not an invention sufficient to meet the patentable standards as defined by the Act or illustrated by the decisions. The Clark binding strip is made in one continuous piece and wraps around the four corner caps. In some of the prior patents the binding strips were made in four sections, the ends of each section abutting or dovetailing with the corner caps. However, in Soper No.

1,815,167, Hunter No. 2,032,878 and Burrowes No. 1,235,432 (1917), one continuous strip was used, although in Burrowes it was merely an alternative feature.

Thus all that the Clark patent does is to use the continuous strip in conjunction with the corner caps well known to the prior art.

How to download lionel loueke heritage file to my device? Lionel loueke the journey.

Above, the head of a 2-hole hanging clipboard I picked up years ago. An earlier clip under the 'Shannon' name was patented in 1878 by the Yawman & Erbe Company of Rochester, New York and advertised as the 'Shannon Single Arch File No. 1, Office Specialty Manufacturing Company, Rochester, New York, 1897.' Yawman & Erbe model.

From eBay The Yawman & Erbe Company of Rochester New York was founded in the 1870's by Philip H. Yawman and Gustave Erbe, two former employees of Bausch & Lomb.

Yawman And Erbe Manufacturing Company

Along with the Globe-Wernicke Company of Cincinnati, Ohio and the Art Metal Construction Company of Jamestown, New York, Yawman & Erbe were among the first American manufacturers of vertical filing cabinets. It seems that the company changed its name to the Office Specialty Manufacturing Company in the early 1880's, although the Yawman & Erbe name may also have been retained for use on other products.

Under the new company name, the initial product was a filing device to facilitate the collection of invoices and other records. Hard to believe, but this was a revolutionary concept at the time, as the ad below from one of their competitors indicates.

The Toronto head office fell victim to the 1903 fire in that city that destroyed 139 businesses, but a new office building was constructed. Their product line expanded to include snow shovels, an essential item for store owners back then and good source of profit, as each shovel grossed over half a cent. In 1920, the Newmarket location became the head office for the corporation, while regional offices were continued in Halifax, Quebec City, Ottawa, Hamilton, Winnipeg, Calgary, Regina, Edmonton and Vancouver. Like most office furniture companies, they made the transition from wood to steel (for fire safety reasons), although the steel products were initially shaped and finished to look like wood. Here's how one 1949 article described operations in the factory.

Over the next few decades, they introduced a line of aluminum 'Super Chairs,' 'Herbarium Cabinets' for storing dried plants, and the Ferris Wheel-like Diebold Power Files. Reportedly, in 1943 the Rochester owners of the company declared bankruptcy, and a workers cooperative bought the firm at public auction. Whatever the American ownership situation, the Canadian company soldiered on and by the late 1940's had three plant divisions (Metal, Wood and 'Paper' (presumably veneer)) and was employing 600 people in Newmarket plus a cadre of salespeople in 12 company retail stores across the country. At that time, they took an order for the largest conference table ever made in Canada: 29 feet long, capable of seating 42 people! The 1950's were not kind to the company, which declined through the decade and was finally sold in 1961.

A huge fire in 1971 destroyed much of the Newmarket factory. What was left was eventually rebuilt into housing units, while another part became a police station.

The northern section of the complex housed the city museum at one point. The Office Specialty building and 15 acres of land was bought by the Town of Newmarket in 1987 to provide access to key lands along the Holland River and to provide building space for municipal and business use. The building and 2.6 acres surrounding it were sold to a private developer in 2003, who agreed to return the 91-year-old facade to its original design. The building is now called 'Specialty Lofts.'

As for the company itself, Office Specialty underwent a successful Initial Public Offering in 1997 and officially adopted the operating name two years later. It is still in operation although, from what I can determine, manufacturing no longer takes place in Canada.