Judgment of the Court
think the decision in this appeal turns upon the question whether the bow-like slot in which Samuels' rubber blades are inserted is an essential element in his invention. If it is, there is no infringement because that element has not been taken.
I have come to the conclusion, however, that this is only a particular means for maintaining the cupped shape of the base and body of the blade and thereby imparting to it the necessary rigidity; and, as a particular means only for maintaining this rigidity which is the essential thing, it is non-essential. The point is not without difficulty but it does not, as I see it, lend itself to extended discussion. The substance of the invention lies in shaping the blade in such fashion as to maintain the rigidity of its base and body while leaving the edges sufficiently flexible to be harmless. In that I think there was novelty and invention and, in substance, this has, I think, been taken. I do not discuss it further but this in no way implies any disrespect to the able and careful argument of Mr. Scott.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed with costs.