Denominational Envelope Co. v. Duplex Envelope Co.’s Empirical Analysis
80 F.2d 186 · 1935
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently February 1981 · most notably 218 F. Supp. 1 - Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd. v. Bendix Aviation Corp. (1963), S. H. Kress & Company v. Elie P. Aghnides and Chase Brass & Copper Company, Inc. (1957)
11 federal appellate · 9 district ·
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 Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters · Keystone Driller Co. v. Northwest Engineering Corp. · Halstead v. Grinnan · R. Hoe & Co. v. Goss Printing Press Co. · Auto Pneumatic Action Co. v. Kindler & Collins
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * it is the language of the claim, and not the argument of patent counsel which controls. Of course the claim as allowed must be read and interpreted with reference to the rejected claims, and to the prior state of the art, and cannot be construed to cover what was rejected by the Patent Office or disclosed by prior devices. Doughnut Machine Corporation v. Joe-Lowe Corp. (C.C.A.) 67 F.2d 135 . On the other hand, the solicitors’ arguments of themselves set up no estoppel. ‘We read the claims as they are written, like the language of any other formal statement drawn up as the final memorial of the parties’ intentions, and we decline to consider what was said arguendo during the passage of the case through the Patent Office, or any other of the preliminary negotiations which the patent itself was intended to subsume.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is well established that patentability may reside in a combination of old elements to produce new results, and a fortiori, this may be true when one of the elements in the combination is itself new and patentable. The new element may be patented alone and the combination may also be patented, especially when a new part of a machine is invented which has no utility or functional importance except as a part of the whole. Bassick Mfg. Co. v. Adams Grease Gun Co. (C.C.A.) [2 Cir.] 52 F.2d 36 ; Doughnut Mach. Corp. v. Joe-Lowe Corp. (C.C.A.) [4 Cir.] 67 F.2d 135 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.