Wallace v. Mandel Bros.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““With regard to analogous art, it is the rule that, though an inventor is conclusively presumed to know the prior art in his own and clearly allied lines of endeavor, he is not bound by what has been done in remote or nonanalogous arts. Ottinger v. Ferro Stamping & Mfg. Co., 6 Cir., 59 F.2d 640 ; Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Rogers Products Co., Inc., 3 Cir., 42 F.2d 648 . A reference, in order to be effective to disprove the novelty of an alleged invention, must relate to the same art as the questioned invention, or to an analogous or closely related art. Wallace v. Mandel Bros., Inc., 7 Cir., 164 F.2d 861 . ‘We are of opinion that whether arts or uses are analogous depends upon the similarity of their elements and purposes. If the elements and purposes in one art are related and similar to those in another art, and because and by reason of that relation and similarity make an appeal to the mind of a person having mechanical skill and knowledge of the purposes of the other art, then we are of opinion that such arts must be said to be.analogous, and, if the converse is true, they are nonanalogous arts.’ A. J. Deer Co., Inc. v. U. S. Slicing Mach. Co., 7 Cir., 21 F.2d 812, 813 ; Copeman Laboratories Co. v. General Plastics Corp., 7 Cir., 149 F.2d 962 ; Wallace v. Mandel Bros., Inc., supra.” Allied Wheel Products v. Rude, 206 F.2d 752, at 755 (CCA6, 1953).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Printing Plate Supply Co. v. Crescent Engraving Co.