OED Appeals List: Nonblocking

[Baker, John]

        The appeals list asks for any written evidence of "nonblocking"
in non-computing senses, especially in pre-1972 uses.  Here are a few,
from historical cases via Westlaw.  The first, though in a non-computing
context, still has to do with electronics and probably is related to the
computing sense.  I don't know why so many of these are from patents.


        Vikonics, Inc. v. United Stated, 749 F. Supp. 315, 317 (D.D.C.
1990):  The technical evaluators, who did not have the benefit of full
technical data, commented that the system was not "non-blocking." FN1

                FN1. Non-blocking means that whenever the receiver is
picked up a dial tone, rather than a busy signal, can be obtained.


        Metal Film Co. v. Metlon Corp., 316 F. Supp. 96, 105 (S.D.N.Y.
1970):  As to drying and curing, the patent states that the plastic
coating should be non-blocking FN6 and that it should be resistant to
the 'various dye and cleaning processes, etc.'

                FN6. 'Blocking' is the tendency of a material when wound
up to adhere to itself. If a metallized yarn, on a spool for weaving or
knitting purposes, were to 'block,' it could not be unwound and would be
worthless.


        Boyajian v. Old Colony Envelope Co., 279 F.2d 572, 573 n.1 (1st
Cir. 1960) (quoting a 1957 patent):  The patent contains ten claims . .
. . '1. An envelope having on the underside of the marginal portions of
the seal flap thereof a glossy layer of remoistenable adhesive coating
composition having as its essential ingredient polyvinyl alcohol, said
layer being non-curling, non-blocking, non-staining, non-checking, and
permanently responsive to applied moisture at any temperature, and
having a wholesome, pleasant taste, and quick adherence upon
remoistening and which has been deposited from homogeneous free flowing
solution.'


        Otto v. Koppers Co., 147 F. Supp. 552, 566 n.1 (N.D.W.Va. 1956)
(quoting 1952 patent):  "non-blocking spray nozzles mounted in said
structure . . . ."


        Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Baxter, 42 Neb. 793, 60 N.W. 1044, 1045
(Neb. 1894):  A railroad brakeman, a part of whose duty it was to couple
cars upon tracks known by him to be unblocked and dangerous, while so
engaged, caught his foot in a frog, and was injured. Held, that he took
upon himself the risk involved in the nonblocking of the frogs, and
could not maintain an action against his employer for the injury
sustained. Wood v. Locke, 147 Mass. 604, 18 N. E. 578.


        In the 1894 example from Nebraska, the court is summarizing the
holding of the earlier Massachusetts case.  The Nebraska court must have
had additional information about this case, because the report it cites
doesn't mention blocking.


John Baker

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org