Anthracite Separator Co. v. Pollock’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'“A prior use, in order to negative novelty, must be something more than an accidental or casual one. It must, indeed, be so far understood and practiced, or persisted in, as to contribute to the sum of human knowledge and be accessible to. the public, becoming an established fact in the art. Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. 477 , 497, 13 L. Ed. 504 ; Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U. S. 707 , 26 L. Ed. 279 ; Acme Flexible Clasp Co. v. Cary Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 96 Fed. 344 : Ajax Metal Co. v. Brady Brass Co. (C. C.) 155 Fed. 409 . There is not the remotest approach to anything oí that kind here. No doubt, as already stated, there was a conforming structure with a somewhat similar function, and, looking back with the light which we now have, we are able to see that the parties had the device of the patent almost, if not quite, in hand. But they did not follow it up as they should, and, 'stopping short where the present inventor went on, it cannot be brought in now to anticipate and defeat what he has successfully achieved by himself.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ramsay v. Lynn · Robinson v. American Fruit Machinery Co.