Bourke v. Buegeleisen

(after stating the facts as above). There is nothing in the claims not found in the prior art, except the “integral rocking means at the fulcrum of said lever”; that is, the integral side pro*210jeetions which support the lever upon the plate, and the integral rounded projections at its fulcrum which allow it to turn in the socket. Bourke’s device intrinsically, is no better than the devices of the prior art. AE that is claimed for it is that it costs less to manufacture, and there is no doubt that the elimination of the pivot pin substantially reduced the cost of manufacture. To eliminate the…