Noah Haynes Swayne

Name: Schumacher v. Cornell — Opinion of the Court
Author: Noah Haynes Swayne

Schumacher v. Cornell — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Schumacher v. Cornell — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Noah Haynes Swayne. It explores elements such as bushing, wrench and core.

Quotes from Schumacher v. Cornell — Opinion of the Court (Noah Haynes Swayne)

Noah Haynes Swayne, Schumacher v. Cornell — Opinion of the Court

“ The notch is the point of engagement between the bushing and the wrench when the latter, operating as a lever, gives the former its circular motion, and thus forces it home. Without this arrangement such motion could not be communicated and the desired result produced. Hence its importance in the scheme of the invention. Without it, the rest would be as worthless for the end in view as one blade of a pair of scissors disjoined from the other.
The appellants thought this notch arrangement seriously objectionable. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, Schumacher v. Cornell — Opinion of the Court

“ The appellants entered the new and unoccupied field before them and succeeded. Their wrench has a projection or core attachment, which is inserted into the bush. Through this core runs a rod with a latch at the lower end, which fits into a recess at the bottom of the core. The core is introduced into the bush; the latch is turned by means of a knob at its top, so as to catch against the projection in the bush. The force of the wrench then being applied, the bush is readily screwed to its place. This was the last stage in the process of the invention. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, Schumacher v. Cornell — Opinion of the Court

“ They sought to obviate the difficulty by an invention of their own.
The first thing to be done was to change the bush so as to give it the desired strength. This could be effected only by dispensing with the notch. That was done.
Then it was indispensable that something should be substituted whereby the necessary turning motion could be given by the wrench to the bushing without injuring or destroying the latter. For this purpose a projection was put on the inside of the bush, low down. This strengthened rather than weakened it.
Bushes, like wrenches, are very old. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, Schumacher v. Cornell — Opinion of the Court

“ But whether the patent here is for a combination or not is, in our view, not material. If the negative be conceded, we think the differences in the two instruments are so radical that the end of this litigation must be the same.
Upon examining the models and specifications of the parties, it is found that the appellants have nothing in common with the appellees in several important particulars. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, Schumacher v. Cornell — Opinion of the Court

“ The part B is placed in the bush, and the operator then takes hold of the knob E and turns it, and, as it turns, the part D at the bottom is turned out and catches against the projection I in the bushing, and then the handle A and the bush will turn with it and be screwed home.
'My invention is a wrench to screw bung-bushings into beer-barrels, and fits into the opening and strikes against a projection on the bushing at the inner end of the bush, thus preserving the whole strength of the bushing. The notch on the outer side of the bushing, which weakens it, is avoided. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, Schumacher v. Cornell — Opinion of the Court

“ Every thing is claimed together and in the aggregate. If any thing was withdrawn, and no equivalent supplied in its place, the instrument would be a failure. Each element is a part of a compound unit, and is necessary to the completeness and efficacy of the result. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, Schumacher v. Cornell — Opinion of the Court

“ They have not the flat plate B, nor the mortise C, nor the V-shaped projection D, nor the bolt F, as shown in Fig. 2, nor any arrangement touching the core whereby it can be removed, and one of larger diameter be substituted, when the size of the cavity of the bush requires such a change; and there is no notch in the flange of the bush such as that to which the appellee's wrench is applied, and hence no projection to fit into such an indentation. Without both these things the appellee's wrench would be entirely useless. They are, therefore, vital in the invention covered by his patent. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, Schumacher v. Cornell — Opinion of the Court

“ He must stand by his claim as he has made it. If more or less than the whole of his ingredients are used by another, such party is not liable as an infringer, because he has not used the invention or discovery patented. ”

Noah Haynes Swayne

Summary

Quotes from Schumacher v. Cornell — Opinion of the Court (Noah Haynes Swayne)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature