First assisted opener?

SPXTrader said:
vjb, does yours have the flat-head clip screws? As I understand it, that's a good indication its one of the first ones off the line.
Click to expand...

Brad, if I remember correctly, there were 3 variations on the Random Task.
One had a ramped thumb stud with the flat head clip screws you mentioned, then they
replaced the flat heads with pronounced torx screws, next was the standard(non-ramped) thumb stud.

I think.:confused: .......Maybe Ken or Thomas can clarify this......??

The one I have has the non-ramped stud.

a9ab-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
SPXTrader said:
vjb, does yours have the flat-head clip screws? As I understand it, that's a good indication its one of the first ones off the line.
Click to expand...

SPX, are the early production Random and Mini Task more desirable?

I think the box might be a clue, too. My Random Task with the flat pocket clip screws came in a corrugated box that opens on the top. It has the lasercut "Kershaw" on the blade and the ramped thumb-stud.

2626331697_8957669b4d_o.jpg


2627150502_1e74870bfd_o.jpg


My Mini Task with the round screws came in a regular cardboard box that opens on the end and looks like the newer boxes. It has the black "Kershaw" on the blade and the flat-top thumb-stud.

2662824492_c37276a087_o.jpg


2661999019_31f6a53a64_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
SV, I do believe you are correct. Mine is one of the first made, and has the ramped thumb-studs and flat-head screws. :thumbup:

PG, I also have the top opening box. In fact, mine's identical, except it is partially serrated. As for desirable, that's purely a personal preference. Some people out there desire some bizarre stuff! :eek::D

I'm sure Ken would know about the order of progression, but as for the boxes, I'm not sure...:confused:
 
Thanks SPX. I kind of like the older one a little better. I think it may be more a matter of the way "Kershaw" is applied to the blade than anything. But they are both very nice.
 
Is there any relationship with Michael and Helga Maxey of Seattle WA? This patent depicts what looks quite a bit like the "torsion bar" mechanism.
 
In reading the Abstracts of both patents, the one you reference shecky refers to a tension bar that holds the blade closed apparently in place of a ball detent. The Maxey patent does not say that the tension bar also assists the blade in opening. It only states that when applied to the thumb pin, a force being of a magnitude to overcome the tension of the tension bar will allow the blade to open.
 
I dunno. Claim 1a seems like it might in fact describe what is commonly described as "assisted opening".

I'm just curious. The use of a wire form spring as a "tension bar" on one design, and a "torsion bar" on another seems uncannily similar. Which is why I ask if there was any relationship between the inventors on record.
 
shecky said:
I dunno. Claim 1a seems like it might in fact describe what is commonly described as "assisted opening".

I'm just curious. The use of a wire form spring as a "tension bar" on one design, and a "torsion bar" on another seems uncannily similar. Which is why I ask if there was any relationship between the inventors on record.
Click to expand...

I do-know. Completely different. I've worked on patent cases.
 
KeithAM said:
I do-know. Completely different. I've worked on patent cases.
Click to expand...

If possible, could you explain why? I ask because my reading is different. In addition, the figures would indicate the operation between the two is pretty much identical in actual use.
 
shecky, since you posted the link to the other knife, you should have read the patent abstracts first. They describe the use of the tension bar. The drawings show the knife has no ball and detent, and the spring is used to hold the blade closed. Nothing more. You should read more and post less.
 
I am aware of the abstract. An specific reading of the patent beginning around column 7, line 25 describes the functioning as thus;

When a pressure is applied to the thumb pin 16 in a direction illustrated by the arrow 48 away from the handle 14, a force is applied to the tension bar 38. When the force applied to the thumb pin 16 causes the associated force applied to the tension bar 38 to overcome the opposing force or tension of the tension bar 38 as applied by the walls of the arcuate recess 40, the knife blade 12 will be caused to pivot away from the handle 14 as the tension bar 38 moves along the arcuate recess 40.
Click to expand...

Not only does the tension bar keep the blade closed, it also causes the knife blade to pivot away from the handle after the blade has moved enough to overcome the opposing force of the tension bar. Not only do the figures illustrated in the patent look similar to the innards of my Chive, but it would seem they're intended to function the same way.

So my question remains, is there a relationship between the two patent inventors?
 
Shecky, in the Maxey patent the blade pivots because the user is applying enough force to the thumb stud overcome the tension bar. The tension bar is not assisting the blade to open. Nothing in the language of the claim suggests that.

I'd also note the Maxey patent was disclosed to the patent examiner in the application for the Onion patent. Since the patent issued the patent examiner concluded the Maxey patent did not anticipate the Onion patent.
 
KeithAM said:
I'd also note the Maxey patent was disclosed to the patent examiner in the application for the Onion patent. Since the patent issued the patent examiner concluded the Maxey patent did not anticipate the Onion patent.
Click to expand...

So, does that mean the Onion patent was already being "filed" before the Maxey patent was introduced?

mike
 
2brothers said:
So, does that mean the Onion patent was already being "filed" before the Maxey patent was introduced?

mike
Click to expand...

I think I know why you thought this might be the case. My use of "anticipate" was as a legal term of art. The Maxey patent came first. At some point in the Onion patent prosecution process the Maxey patent was examined and distinguished. It's listed on page one of the Onion patent.

I also just noticed the examiner is the same for both patents.
 
Last edited:
If you look at the Maxey patent you'll find the knife used is easly identifyable as an Onion Knife. You'll also notice the mechanism is upside down and backwards.
There are some really nasty and dishonorable people in this world that will cut your throat if they think they can somehow make a dollar. Nuf said.
 
Shecky, in the Maxey patent the blade pivots because the user is applying enough force to the thumb stud overcome the tension bar. The tension bar is not assisting the blade to open. Nothing in the language of the claim suggests that.
Click to expand...

See, I'd disagree, referring back to the highlighted text in my last post. But that's why I'm a knuckle dragging knife nut and not a lawyer.

Thanks, Mr. Onion, for your input. I figured there had to be some explanation.
 
shecky said:
See, I'd disagree, referring back to the highlighted text in my last post.
Click to expand...

I think that's the problem -- you're reading the highlighted text in isolation. The claim is one long sentence, and if you read it from the beginning you'll understand the force opening the Maxey blade is applied to the thumb stud, overcoming the tension on the sppring. It's really not much different than a slip joint with a thumb stud. Read claim 1 of the Onion patent, in contast, which unmistakeably claims the spring assists the blade in opening. Anyway, I've probably beat it to death at this point, and we're all entitled to our opinions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top