In re Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district ·

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

1. ““Claim 13 is quite broad. It provides that the tube member is straight and recites that there is ‘such space between adjacent members that air flowing through said spaces will be subjected to a venturilike effect and will be repeatedly agitated and mixed (that is, “turbulated”) by said acutely inclined surfaces and the temperature of the air will be repeatedly equalized adjacent to said acutely defined surfaces.’ * * F.Supp. — 52% “The main contention of appellant is that he has taken from the prior art certain features and applied them in a different relationship in a new structure and has brought about a new improvement of a patentable character. Appellant argues that not in fifty years of the automobile radiator industry has anyone made a similar combination and he particularly stresses the importance of the use of steel as provided for in claim 10, premising this argument upon the alleged prior understanding that by reason of the corrosive character of steel it was not thought feasible to use this metal in forming the tubes of a heat exchanger. Appellant argues that he has proceeded against the teachings of the art to produce an unexpected result and a substantially new improvement which should be regarded as rising to the dignity of invention. * * * “Surely it cannot be argued that because appellant has picked out of the art certain well-known features with well-known functions and combined them into a new structure, with possible improved results, this necessarily conno”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bishop & Babcock Manufacturing Co. v. Fedders-Quigan Corp.