Samuel Blatchford

Name: Crawford v. Heysinger — Opinion of the Court
Author: Samuel Blatchford

Crawford v. Heysinger — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Crawford v. Heysinger — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Samuel Blatchford. It explores elements such as staple, anvil and recess.

Quotes from Crawford v. Heysinger — Opinion of the Court (Samuel Blatchford)

Samuel Blatchford, Crawford v. Heysinger — Opinion of the Court

“ In a device for inserting metallic staples, the combination of the staple-guide, B, anvil, A', spring, D, and knob, G; the whole arranged to operate substantially as and for the purpose described.' On the fifteenth of June, 1881, the examiner notified the applicant as follows: 'Upon further consideration of this matter, with a view to final action, the second clause of claim is found defective, in the absence of any mechanical combination between the 'knob, G,' and the other elements included in the combination. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Blatchford, Crawford v. Heysinger — Opinion of the Court

“ A staple is placed within the grooves, C, C, with its crown resting on the anvil, A, the points thus being upward. The papers to be united are now placed upon the face of the guide, B, over the staple-points, and, by a sharp blow of the hand upon the knob, G, the driver is forced downward upon the papers. The guide, B, gives way, and the staple-legs come up through the papers into the recess, F, where they are bent over preparatory to the final clinching. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Blatchford, Crawford v. Heysinger — Opinion of the Court

“ The use and operation of the sliding staple-guide, its arrangement so as to slide, the use of the spring, D, to keep it in its normal elevated position, so that it will not drop prematurely, and the use of the knob, G, with which to impel the driver, are fully set forth in the original specification, and described as necessary, in combination with the stationary staple support and the reciprocating slotted or recessed hammer, to insert a staple through layers of stock, and simultaneously bend over its projecting ends ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Blatchford, Crawford v. Heysinger — Opinion of the Court

“ On the question of novelty, the alleged prior invention principally relied upon is a patent of the United States, No. 187, 189, granted to George L. Ward and Orianna S. Smyth, assignees of James C. Smyth, February 6, 1877, for an 'improvement in machines for stitching books with staples.' The circuit court, in its opinion, accompanying the record, held that the patented invention was not anticipated by that of Smyth; that claims 1 and 2 of the reissue were substantially the same as claim 4 of the original patent, when the latter claim was read in the light of the specification ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Blatchford, Crawford v. Heysinger — Opinion of the Court

“ A staple-inserting implement having two opposite jaws arranged with relation to each other, substantially as shown, one of which is provided with a recess, the other with a vertically-channeled staple-guide, an anvil, and a spring, so that, when the jaws are separated, after driving a staple, the guide will be open for the reception of the succeeding staple, substantially as described. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Blatchford, Crawford v. Heysinger — Opinion of the Court

“ An expert for the plaintiffs testifies that he regards the lower part of the defendant's device, which is fixed or stationary, and contains the clinching cavity, and resists the driving and clinching blow of the hand from the opposite part of the tool, as the equivalent for the 'reciprocating driver, provided with the knob, G,' mentioned in claim 2 of the reissue. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Blatchford, Crawford v. Heysinger — Opinion of the Court

“ In both the Smyth and the Heyl devices there are means of forcing out a staple from a case by a contained plunger, and bending the legs against a concave recess. In view of this Smyth machine, the plaintiffs' expert stated that the novelty of the Heyl devices consisted particularly 'in the automatic adjustment to various thicknesses of paper, by means of which, without any added parts, the jaws are a apted to grip and hold all thicknesses of paper while being stapled and clinched ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Blatchford, Crawford v. Heysinger — Opinion of the Court

“ The reciprocating driver, E, constructed with a flat face recessed, substantially as described, whereby the projecting ends of staples may be first bent over by entering the recess and then flattened down by pressure from the flat face.
' (2) The self-adjusting guideblock, B, having staple-guiding grooves, C, C, and a flat face, upon which to complete the clinching of the staple, substantially as and for the purposes set forth. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Blatchford, Crawford v. Heysinger — Opinion of the Court

“ Such have been the uniform decisions of this court in like cases. Leggett v. Avery, 101 U.S. 256; Vulcanite Co. v. Davis, 102 U.S. 222, 228; Fay v. Cordesman, 109 U.S. 408, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236; Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U.S. 354, 359, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 174 ”

Samuel Blatchford

Summary

Quotes from Crawford v. Heysinger — Opinion of the Court (Samuel Blatchford)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature