The Corn-Planter Patent’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

58 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions

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

1. ““When a patentee, after describing a machine, claims as his invention a certain combination of elements, or a certain device or part of the machine, this is an Implied declaration, as conclusive, so far as that patent is concerned, as if it were expressed, that the specific combination or thing claimed is-the only part which the patentee regards as new.””

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rowell v. Lindsay · Carter Mach. Co. v. Hanes

2. ““See. 4886. Any person wño lias invented or discovered any new and- useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, not known or used by others in this country, and not patented or described in any printed publication in this or any foreign country, before his invention or discovery thereof, and not in public use or on sale for more than two years prior to his application, unless the same is proved to have been abandoned, may, upon payment of the fees required by law, and other due proceedings had, obtain a patent therefor.” U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3382. “Sec. 4888. Before any inventor or discoverer shall receive a patent for his invention or discovery, he shall make application therefor, in writing, to the Commissioner of Patents, and shall file in the Patent Office a written description of the same, and of the manner and. process of making, constructing, compounding and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which it pertains, or with which it is most clearly connected, to make, construct, compound and use the same, and in case of a machine, he shall explain the principle thereof, and the best mode in which he has contemplated applying that principle, so as to distinguish it from other inventions; and he shall particularly point out and distinctly claim the part, improvement, or combination which lie claims as his invention or discovery. The spec”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Dolbear v. American Bell Telephone Co. · Fullerton Walnut Growers' Ass'n v. Anderson-Barngrover Mfg. Co.

3. ““The only pretense on which it”—that is, the alleged infringing machine— “can he claimed to he different is that the framework of which it is constructed is not the kind of, framework described by Brown in his specification, namely, ‘without gearing, without spoked wheels, and other expensive fixtures, and resembling a drag or sled more than it does a carriage or wagon in its main or general construction.’ By this description Brown was evidently attempting to show how simply and cheaply the thing could be made, not that it was to be confined to that specific form. It might as well be contended that he intended to confine his invention to wood, and that a machine made of iron or other m'etal, though made in precisely the same form, would not be an infringement, because it would not have the same quality of cheapness and simplicity which he describes.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Reece Button-Hole Ma. Co. v. Globe Button-Hole Ma. Co.