Computing Scale Company of America v. Automatic Scale Company’s Empirical Analysis
204 U.S. 609 · 1907
Citation profile
79 federal appellate · 34 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 200 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2000 · most notably D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance (1942), Warner-Jenkinson Company Inc v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co (1997)
79 federal appellate · 34 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Knapp v. Morss · Shepard v. Carrigan · Cimiotti Unhairing Company v. American Fur Refining Company · Hubbell v. United States · Krementz v. S. Cottle Co.
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 200 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is well settled that the claim as allowed must be read and interpreted with reference to the rejected claim, and to the prior state of the art, and cannot be so construed as to cover either what was rejected by the Patent Office or disclosed by prior devices.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Conceding that this spiral rod and its connections with the cylinder in the manner and for the purposes stated is a novel feature in the combination and entitled to protection, it is of that narrow character of invention which does not entitle the patentee to any considerable range of equivalents, but must be practically limited to the means shown by the inventor. The distinction between pioneer inventions permitting a wide range of equivalents and those inventions of a narrow character, which are limited to the construction shown, has been frequently emphasized by the decisions of this court.” Computing Scale Co. v. Automatic Scale Co., 204 U. S. 609 , 617, 621, 27 Sup. Ct. 307 , 51 L. Ed. 645 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is well settled by numerous decisions of this court that, while a combination of old elements producing a new and useful result will be patentable, yet where the combination is merely the assembling of old elements producing no new and useful result, invention is not shown.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.