Summary

Joseph P. Bradley Ives v. Hamilton — Opinion of the Court

The invention claimed is an improvement on an old machine, and it is properly taken for granted that the practical mechanic is acquainted with the construction of the machine in which the improvement is made; and nothing appears in the case to show that any peculiar position different from that of sawmills constructed in the ordinary way is necessary to render it effective and useful. The essence of the improvement has nothing to do with the precise position of the guides. It is a combination of mechanical means to produce a rocking motion of the saw
Source: Wikisource

Joseph P. Bradley Ives v. Hamilton — Opinion of the Court

The combination of the two things in the defendants' mill namely, the crooked guides above, and the connection of the saw with the pitman below at a point removed from its centre of motion (both being calculated to give to the saw the precise rocking or vibratory motion desired) -is a close copy of the plaintiff's invention; quite as close as is usually made by those who attempt to evade a patent whilst they seek to use the substance of the invention.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature