Jeoffroy Mfg. v. Graham’s Empirical Analysis
206 F.2d 772 · 1953
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently February 1987 · most notably Swofford v. B & W, Inc. (1964), Inglett & Co. v. Everglades Fertilizer Co. (1958)
41 federal appellate · 3 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 Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. · Continental Paper Bag Company v. Eastern Paper Bag Company · Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The concept of invention is inherently elusive when applied to combination of old elements. * * *» “ * -* * ‘The mere aggregation of a number of old parts or elements which, in the aggregation, perform or produce no new or different function or operation than that theretofore performed or produced by them, is not patentable invention.’ * * * The conjunction or concert of known elements must contribute something; only when the whole in some way exceeds the sum of its parts is the accumulation of old devices patentable. Elements may, of course, especially in chemistry or electronics, take on some new quality or function from being brought into concert, but this is not a usual result of uniting elements old in mechanics * * * “Neither court below has made any finding that old elements which made up this device perform any additional or different function in the combination than they perform out of it * * * Two and two have been added together, and still they make only four. “Courts should scrutinize combination patent claims with a care proportioned to the difficulty and improbability of finding invention in an assembly of old elements. The function of a patent is to add to the sum of useful knowledge. Patents cannot be sustained when, on the contrary, their effect is to subtract from former resources freely available to skilled artisans. A patent for a combination which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions, such as is presented here, obviously ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * Graham, was the first to perfect the idea of resilient and frictional engagement of the shank of a ground working tool between a fixed part and a movable part, or between the bracket on the H-Beam and the fulcrum plate pivotally mounted on the bracket.””
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.