Pierce v. Ben-Ko-Matic, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
310 F.2d 475 · 1962
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 102
Relies on Lincoln Engineering Co of Illinois v. Stewart-Warner Corporation · Neff Instrument Corp. v. Cohu Electronics, Inc. · Berkeley Pump Co. v. Jacuzzi Bros. · Beatty Safway Scaffold Co. v. Up-Right, Inc. · Perfect Circle Corp. v. Hastings Manufacturing 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The improvement of one element or part in a combination of old elements or parts does not entitle a patentee to a monopoly on the entire combination. * * * A patent should not be granted for the discovery of a result which would flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art. * * * The extended application or the carrying forward of an earlier idea or conception of another involving a change in form, material, proportion or degree where the same work is performed in substantially the same way by substantially the same means although with better results, does not constitute invention. Mere advance in efficiency and utility is not sufficient to convert a noninventive aggregation of old elements and parts into a patentable combination. * * * Minor differences in design and construction of a patented device over the prior art, involving no new principles and accomplishing nothing more than one skilled in the art could readily discern, do not amount to invention. * * * “ * * * the ingenious application of known principles to a known problem by the use of devices already known and understood to produce a predictable result does not amount to invention. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.