In re Trester’s Empirical Analysis
36 F.2d 133 · 1929
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently February 1953
1 federal appellate ·
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 Richards v. Chase Elevator Co. · People of the State of California Bryant v. Holladay
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The applicant does not contend that his apparatus produces any different result from the Leeder and Whiteway & Sullivan devices. Therefore, the patentable feature, if any, is in the structure of the device. As we look at it, the applicant simply proposes to dispense with the member ‘E’ in Leeder and the lower portion of the member 6 in White-way & Sullivan, and use in lieu thereof the road rail already in situ and entirely independent of the device. In so doing he omits a member used in the prior art and omits also its function. Such a change does not constitute patentability. As is said in Richards v. Chase Elevator Co., 159 U. S. 477 , 486, 16 S. Ct. 53 , 54, 40 L. Ed. 225 : “ ‘The novelty, then, must be in the combination, which differs from the combination of an ordinary elevator only in the omission of the storage feature, by which grain is housed in transit, audits identity lost. While the omission of an element in a combination may constitute invention, if the result of the new combination be the same as before, yet, if the omission of an element is attended by a corresponding omission of the function performed by that element, there is no invention, if the elements retained performed the same function as before.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Fischer
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.