Weis v. Woodman’s Empirical Analysis
65 F.2d 274 · 1933
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 1970
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 In re Smith
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In view of the foregoing, we are unable to perceive that appellant had any other conception than that of a particular function accomplished by a structure made pursuant to the suggestion of appellee, which function may or may not have been known to appellee. We accept as a fact that appellant was the first to discover the utility of cushioned edges to insure effective gripping by the frame members of the screen. “Mere discovery of an additional function in a device invented by another does not constitute invention. In re Smith, 36 F.(2d) 302 , 17 C.C.P.A. [Patents] 644.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Swan v. Thompson
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.