Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

153 federal appellate · 70 district · 2 state decisions

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 378 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “* * * The law applicable does not differ from that governing mechanical patents. To entitle an applicant to the benefit of the act, in either case, there must be originality, — exercise of the inventive faculty. In the one must appear creative novelty and utility; in the other creative originality in artistry. Mere mechanical skill, whether of the artisan or of the artist, is insufficient. * * *”

   20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hammond v. Stockton Combined Harvester & Agricultural Works · Eclipse Manuf'g Co. v. Holland

2. ““They [the acts of Congress] contemplate not so much utility as appearance, and that, not an abstract impression, or picture, but an aspect given to those objects mentioned in the acts. * * * And the thing invented or produced, for which a patent is given, is that which gives a peculiar or distinctive appearance to the manufacture, or article to which it may be applied, o-r to which it gives form. The law manifestly contemplates that giving certain new and original appearances to a manufactured article may enhance its salable value, may enlarge the demand for it, and may be a meritorious service to the public. It therefore proposes to secure for a limited time to the ingenious producer of those appearances the advantages flowing from them. Manifestly the mode in which those appearances are produced has very little, if anything, to do with giving increased salableness to the article. It is the appearance itself which attracts attention and calls out favor or dislike. It is the appearance itself, therefore, no matter by what agency caused, that constitutes mainly, if not entirely, the contribution to the public which the law deems worthy of recompense. The appearance may be the result of peculiarity of configuration, or of ornament alone, or of both conjointly, but, in whatever way produced, it is the new thing, or product, which the patent law regards. To speak of the invention as a combination or process, or to treat it as such, is to overlook its peculiarities. As the acts o”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. West Disinfecting Co. v. Frank · Crier v. Innes

3. ““[T]he true test of identity of design is sameness of appearance, — in other words, sameness of effect upon the eye; that it is not necessary that the appearance should be the same to the eye of an expert, and that the test is the eye of an ordinary observer, the eyes of men generally, of observers of ordinary acuteness, bringing to the examination of the article upon which the design has been placed that degree of observation which men of ordinary intelligence give.” Ripley v. [Elson] Glass Co., 49 F. 927 . [Emphasis ours. Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co., 148 U.S. 674 , 679, 13 S.Ct. 768 , 770, 37 L.Ed. 606 (1893).]”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bolte & Weyer Co. v. Knight Light Co. · In re Zahn