Zinsser v. Kremer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 3 district ·

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

1. ““The invention consists in treating beer and other liquids o£ a similar nature with lumps of bicarbonate of soda or of other alkali, said lumps being compacted by means of a suitable cement, so that they are heavy enough to at once drop through the liquid to he treated upon the bottom of the vessel containing the liquid. The carbonic acid evolved from said lumps is thus compelled to permeate the entire column of liquid above it, and at the same time to give up the requisite quantity of alkaline matter. Together with the lumps of biearbonales of alkali may be used lumps of tartaric or other suitable acid, compacted in the same manner as the lumps of bicarbonate of alkali, so that the amount of carbonic acid evolved from the latter can he easily controlled. It is a common practice with brewers and others to use bicarbonate of soda, either alone or together with tartaric acid, in the manufacture of beer, sparkling wines, and other effervescent liquids, for the purpose of increasing the life of such liquids. The mode of applying such article or articles by brewers, for instance, is to apply about one ounce of the bicarbonate of soda to each quarter barrel with a table-spoon, the bicarbonate being in the form of a powder. The powder, on being thrown into a barrel of beer, will at first float on the surface of the liquid, and immediately evolve carbonic acid, a large portion of which is lost, together with the beer which is thrown out by the action of the acid before the barrel can”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Zinsser v. Krueger · Zinsser v. Krueger

2. ““The inventive novelty claimed consists in passing compacted lumps of bicarbonate of soda or other alkali through beer and similar liquids, in casks, and depositing the same at the bottom, where it will slowly dissolve, and the carbonic acid evolved be distributed equally throughout the liquid. The treatment of beer and other liquids with bicarbonate of soda was not new. It was in common use, and bad been for a long time. The method employed, however, was that of dropping powdered bicarbonate on top. This was attended with serious disadvantages. The liquid was not thoroughly permeated, and the powder floated on top instantly evolved acid in quantities so large as to cause overflow before the cask could be closed; The patentee sought for means to obviate these disadvantages. He saw that if the bicarbonate could be deposited at the bottom of the liquid, and its dissolution retarded, the entire contents of the cask would be equally treated, and the loss from overflow be avoided. He further saw that, if the bicarbonate could be compressed into solid lumps, it would pass to the bottom when dropped, and the dissolution also be retarded. Experimenting with this method, lie found the result beneficial and satisfactory. Thereupon he applied for and obtained the patent. The novelty thus exhibited seems quite sufficient to sustain his claim. It is true that nothing more is done than charging the liquid with carbonic acid gas, and this had been done before; but he does it in a different ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Zinsser v. Krueger

3. ““This invention consists in treating beer and other liquids of a similar nature with lumps of bicarbonate of soda or other alkali, said lumps being completed by means of a suitable cement, so that they are heavy enough to at once drop through the liquid to be treated, upon the bottom of the vessel containing the liquid. The carbonic acid evolved from said lumps is thus compelled to permeate the entire column of liquid above it, and at the same time to give up the requisite quantity of alkaline matter.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Zinsser v. Krueger