Samuel Blatchford

Name: Weatherhead v. Coupe — Opinion of the Court
Author: Samuel Blatchford

Weatherhead v. Coupe — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Weatherhead v. Coupe — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Samuel Blatchford. It explores elements such as hide, stretcher and stretching.

Quotes from Weatherhead v. Coupe — Opinion of the Court (Samuel Blatchford)

Samuel Blatchford, Weatherhead v. Coupe — Opinion of the Court

“ Davis, an accomplished worker in leather, has tried with some success an enlarged copy of the old belt-leather stretcher, to do the work of the plaintiffs' machine. He is obliged to use a greater number of men or boys to tend the machine and prevent the pressure from ruining the hide, which, of itself, tends to prove that the machines are not alike; and we have no doubt that, if the plaintiffs' devices are considered an improvement upon this old machine, they embody a patentable improvement. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Blatchford, Weatherhead v. Coupe — Opinion of the Court

“ It is contended, however, that in the use of the defendants' machine a transverse stretching is produced simultaneously, and by a device substantially like the doubly-inclined stretcher bar, K, of the patent. It is for the plaintiffs to establish that the defendants use substantially the doubly-inclined stretcher bar, K. The mere smoothing out of wrinkles, and the stretching of the body of the leather so as to reduce it permanently to an equal thickness throughout, are two separate and distinct things. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Blatchford, Weatherhead v. Coupe — Opinion of the Court

“ The transverse stretching in the Coupe machine has the effect to preserve the result of the longitudinal stretching, and to stretch the hide completely in a single passage of it through the machine.
The first claim of the patent is for the combination of a friction table or beam, over which the hide is drawn, a stretcher, substantially as described, and a revolving roller, to which the hide is secured, and around which it is wound as it is drawn over the friction beam and stretcher. This is a claim to mechanism. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Blatchford, Weatherhead v. Coupe — Opinion of the Court

“ Although the third claim is not confined to a passage of the hide through the machine only once, where such single passage does not produce a perfect result, it is manifest from the specification that the use of the combination covered by the first claim is intended and expected to produce complete longitudinal and transverse stretching simultaneously, by a single passage through the machine. Such stretching action, transverse as well as longitudinal, may not be, in a given instance, sufficiently severe, and a second application of the machine to the same hide may be required ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Blatchford, Weatherhead v. Coupe — Opinion of the Court

“ They omit the means for producing the pressure, and add a table not useful in the old machine, but which, in the new machine, enables the workmen to exert sufficient pressure.
'The defendants at one time used a machine which closely resembles that of the plaintiffs. At present they have one which works with a trough and bar, like the old belt stretcher, with the addition of a table over which the leather passes, and which enables the workmen to spread out and manipulate the hide. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Blatchford, Weatherhead v. Coupe — Opinion of the Court

“ It is claimed that that machine is an infringement of claim 1; that the use of it is an infringement of claim 3; and that it is the machine of which Judge Lowell speaks in his opinion as the machine used 'at present' by the defendants. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Blatchford, Weatherhead v. Coupe — Opinion of the Court

“ The manipulation with the table and grooves ments of the first claim upon two thirds of the width of the hide each time it passes through the machine, and it depends altogether on the thickness and stability of the board whether the whole operation is or is not copied. The very presence of this removable board is evidence that the old machine is not satisfactory for the new use.
'The argument that a machine must be automatic in order to be patentable is not sound. A piano is not automatic, nor is any tool or implement intended for use by hand ”

Samuel Blatchford

Summary

Quotes from Weatherhead v. Coupe — Opinion of the Court (Samuel Blatchford)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature