Forncrook v. Root’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Be it known that I, James Forncrook, of Watertown, in the county of Jefferson and State of Wisconsin, have invented certain hew and useful improvements in sectional honey-frames, and I do hereby declare the following to be a full, clear, and exact description of the invention, such as will enable others skilled in the art to which it appertains to make and use the same, reference being had to the accompanying drawings, and to letters of reference marked thereon, which form a part of this specification. This invention relates to an improvement in sectional honey-frames, the object, being to so construct them that they shall be stronger and in a more portable form than the frames now used for such purposes ; and the invention consists essentially in forming the frames from a single blank or piece of material having all the necessary grooves and recesses required to form a complete frame cut in it, the ends of the blank being notched or dentated, and angular grooves cut across it at those points which are to form the corners. These blanks, after being thus prepared, may be packed solidly in boxes, or otherwise, for transportation, and, when required for use, are bent into the square forms, and their ends united at one of the corners, by means of the interlocking notches or teeth, thus forming a complete frame ready for use. In the drawings, Fig. lisa plan of one of the blanks, showing the various recesses and grooves- with which it is sup plied'. Fig. 2 is an edge view of the b”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Forncrook v. Root

2. “The question, therefore, is Avhether, upon the evidence, at the date of the alleged invention, the manufacture of honey-frames or sections, by bending and uniting the ends of a blank consisting of a single piece, substantially as described in this patent, Avas a patentable novelty. Upon a careful comparison and consideration of all the evidence this question must be answered in the negative. Alexander Fiddes testifies to making and.using honey sections formed from a single piece, grooved, bent, and united at the ends, as early as 1872 and 1873, some of Avhich he sold to others for use; and, if those now made'by the complainant under his patent are superior in any respect to the first specimens of the manufacture, it is merely in point of finish and workmanship. There is no difference whatever in principle, and the early examples Avere complete and practical frames, actually used and perfectly serving the purpose, so that they cannot be considered as rude and imperfect experiments, .subsequently developed into a successful manufacture.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Forncrook v. Root

3. “As a new article of manufacture, a blank for honey-frames formed of a single piece of wood, having transverse angular grooves a, longitudinal groove d, and recesses 6, all arranged in the manner shown and described,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Forncrook v. Root