The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921. Page: 27
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
EDWARDS MFG. CO. V. NATIONAL FIREWORKS DIST. CO. 27
calls for the detail of the escapement mechanism functioning to control
the two-part trigger and hammer operation. Both the one and the two
piece hammer and trigger are old in the art. Plaintiff's expert testi-
fied that the use of one or the other is merely a matter of choice. We
are cited to at least 11 different patents in which the trigger and ham-
mer are of the two-piece construction, so that whatever of novelty, if
any, there is in the Clark patent, must reside in the escapement mech-
amsm of these elements. In Adams, No. 350,087, when the lower part
of the trigger is pulled rearwardly, the upper end will engage with a
lateral projection on the hammer in such manner as to slide the ham-
mer away from the anvil and compress the mainspring. When the trig-
ger reaches the limit of its rearward movement, the upper, end slips
under the projection on the hammer and permits the hammer to be
thrown forcibly against the anvil. The lower end of the projection
on the hammer is beveled from the front to the rear. On the upper end
of the trigger is a reverse bevel. Upon the return movement of the
trigger, which is accomplished by finger pressure, instead of a spring,
the beveled end of the trigger is brought into engagement with the
corresponding bevel portion of the projection on the hammer, permitting
the trigger to be brought back into operative engagement with this pro-
Clark differs from Adams, in that he uses but one bevel, which is
located on the shoulder of the hammer. The upper end of the trigger
comes in contact with this shoulder, so that, when the lower end of
the trigger is pulled rearwardly, the upper end moves the hammer for-
ward until the trigger passes under it, and the hammer is thrown
against the anvil by the action of the mainspring. The trigger is also
provided with a spring coiled about its pivot, which spring, whep the
trigger end is released, will cause the trigger to move backward, the
inner side of the upper end sliding over the bevel side of the hammer
shoulder to its original position before firing. To compensate for the
absence of the second bevel in Adams, the trigger in Clark is loosely
connected upon its axis.
Whether the loose connection of this trigger as a substitute for the
second bevel in Adams is such an advance over the prior art as to
amount to invention, it is not necessary at this time to decide, for the
reason that the defendant's construction differs from both Clark and
Adams, in that the projection on the lower end of the hammer member
engages with the shoulder on the lower end of the trigger member.
When the trigger is pulled rearwardly. the engaging end of the ham-
mer moves backward with the trigger until it passes the shoulder, and
is then raised by a bevel on the trigger directly back of this shoulder
to the plane of the outer surface of the shoulder itself This permits
the escape of the hammer member, which is then thrown by the action
of the mainspring forcibly against the anvil.
The sole function of the bevel on the trigger to the rear of the
shoulder is to permit the escape of the hammer member to the plane
of the outer surface of the shoulder itself. unlike the bevels in Clark
and Adams. it performs no duty whatever in the return of the trigger
to operative engagement. On the contrary, the lower end of the ham-
Here’s what’s next.
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921., legislative document, 1921; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38843/m1/49/: accessed February 23, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.