Field v. Knowles’s Empirical Analysis
183 F.2d 593 · 1950
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably Price v. Symsek (1993), E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Berkley & Co. (1980)
10 federal appellate · 6 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 Hildreth v. Mastoras · Mason v. Hepburn · Townsend v. Smith · Land v. Dreyer
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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * To constitute an actual reduction to practice of a machine, the device must be completed in an operative form capable of successfully demonstrating its practical utility in its intended field of use. Ocumpaugh v. Norton, 25 App.D.C. 90; Van Auken v. Cummings, 49 F.2d 490, 18 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1250. Unless the device is of such a nature that by its very simplicity its practical operativeness is manifest, Mason v. Hepburn, 13 App.D.C. 86, 89, the machine must be tested under actual working conditions, Smith v. Nevin, 73 F.2d 940, 22 C.C.P.A., Patents, 748, in such a way as to demonstrate its practical utility for its intended purpose, Sydeman v. Thoma, 32 App.D.C. 362, 373; Feldmeier et al. v. Mojonnier, 97 F.2d 124, 25 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1158, beyond probability of failure, Taylor v. Swingle, 136 F.2d 914, 30 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1219. Actual performance is required of the funtion for which the machine is intended with a quality, extent, and character of operation sufficient to indicate its utility in the environment in which it is contemplated to be useful. Lavin v. Pierotti, supra [129 F.2d 883, 29 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1235]; Steenstrup v. Heath, 95 F.2d 514, 517; 25 C.C.P.A., Patents, 981, 986; Van Auken v. Cummings, supra.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Conception must be proved by corroborating evidence which shows that the inventor disclosed to others his 'complete thought expressed in such clear terms as to enable those skilled in the art' to make the invention.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“* * * the disclosure of an application placed in interference by the Patent Office is presumed to be an operative disclosure and will not be held to be inoperative unless it is established by a preponderance of the evidence that it can not be made to operate for any practical or useful purpose by changes short of invention which one skilled in the art would be capable of applying in making the device with the specification and drawings of the application as his guide. The burden of proof may be carried with evidence' of inter partes tests of devices so built but such tests may be accorded little weight where it appears that the testor did not utilize the skill of the art to overcome difficulties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Chase v. Gartner
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.