Boyer v. Keller Tool Co.’s Empirical Analysis
127 F. 130 · 1903
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 1962 · most notably 3 F. Supp. 120 - Cold Metal Process Co. v. UNITED STATES ENG. & FOUNDRY CO. (1933), United States Pipe & Foundry Co. v. James B. Clow & Sons, Inc. (1962)
6 federal appellate · 7 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Hobbs v. Beach · Sessions v. Romadka · National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake-Beam Co. · National Cash Register Co. v. American Cash Register Co. · Taylor v. Sawyer Spindle Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Convinced, as we are, that the plaintiff has supplied features that have brought success, where others who had preceded him failed, we are not in' dined to scan narrowly the means by which it has been obtained. The mechanical elements combined are, no doubt, old, and so, to a certain extent, may be the result accomplished. But nowhere do we find the same combination employed to produce it, and the efficiency attained is so much in advance of that which had gone before as of itself to suggest, if it does not prove, the exercise of inventive skill.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is not located, in our judgment, in the grasping portion of the handle, as is required by the claims in suit, but beyond it in a distinct recess or chamber of the tool body specially fashioned to receive and bold it.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““So far as claims 42 and 45 are concerned, no particular form of construction or mode of operation is specified in them, “and none is therefore to be imposed. * * * Moreover, he has embodied in a special set of claims (49 to 51, inclusive, not involved in this suit) forms of valves corresponding with the specifications, to which, so far as concerns the mechanical combinations there described, the inventor is, of course, confined. But these are not to be written into other claims, which, in order to avoid the duplication that would otherwise result, if for no other reason, are to be taken and interpreted as they stand.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.