Kelly v. Clow’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 1 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In regard to the other feature of novelty, it is apparent that the patent furnishes no information as to the size of the chamber, 0, nor in reference to the distance back from outlet, r, at which the valve, m, should be placed. In these particulars the mechanic is left to the exercise of his own judgment. It is evident, therefore, that neither the size of the chamber, nor at what distance back from the outlet the valve, m, should be placed to dissipate the splash, can be determined except by experiment. ‘Accurate description of the invention is required by law for several purposes: (1) That the government may know what is granted, and what will become public property when the term of the monopoly expires; (2) that licensed persons desiring to practice the invention may know during the term how to make, construct, and use the invention; (3) that other inventors may know what part of the field of invention is occupied.’ Bates v. Coe, 98 U. S. 31 , 39, 25 L. Ed. 68 . The complainants cannot appropriate to themselves every size of chamber and every distance from the outlet at which to place the valve.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Chisholm, Boyd & White Co. v. Anderson Foundry & Machine Works

2. ““Similar combinations are found in many prior patents, but all of the elements found in complainants’ combination are shown not to have been used together in any one of the prior patents in the same relation to each other. It is insisted that the novelty of the combination can only be destroyed by showing that all of its elements have been used together before, and in the same relation to each other. The contrary is well established.” See loe. cit.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Voightmann v. Weis & Ridge Cornice Co.

3. ““He [the patentee] cannot claim such a construction of his patent as would include what he was expressly required to abandon as a condition of the grant, even if it takes away a material part of his real invention. Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co., 152 U. S. 425 [ 14 S. Ct. 627 , 38 L. Ed. 500 ].””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Knight v. Union Hardware Co.