HKB
"Brown v. Piper, 91 U.S. 37 (1875): A method for preserving fish by freezing them in a container operating in the same manner as an ice cream freezer.
"Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U.S. 347 (1876): Inserting a piece of rubber in a slot in the end of a wood pencil to serve as an eraser.
"Dalton v. Jennings, 93 U.S. 271 (1876): Fine thread placed across open squares in a regular hairnet to keep hair in place more effectively.
"Double-Pointed Tack Co. v. Two Rivers Mfg. Co., 109 U.S. 117 (1883): Putting a metal washer on a wire staple.
"Miller v. Foree, 116 U.S. 22 (1885): A stamp for impressing initials in the side of a plug of tobacco.
"Preston v. Manard, 116 U.S. 661 (1886): A hose reel of large diameter so that water may flow through hose while it is wound on the reel.
"Hendy v. Miners' Iron Works, 127 U.S. 370 (1888): Putting rollers on a machine to make it moveable.
"St. Germain v. Brunswick, 135 U.S. 227 (1890): Revolving cue rack.
"Shenfield v. Nashawannuck Mfg. Co., 137 U.S. 56 (1890): Using flat cord instead of round cord for the loop at the end of suspenders.
"Florsheim v. Schilling, 137 U.S. 64 (1890): Putting elastic gussets in corsets.
"Cluett v. Claflin, 140 U.S. 180 (1891): A shirt bosom or dickie sewn onto the front of a shirt.
"Adams v. Bellaire Stamping Co., 141 U.S. 539 (1891): A lantern lid fastened to the lantern by a hinge on one side and a catch on the other.
"Patent Clothing Co. v. Glover, 141 U.S. 560 (1891): Bridging a strip of cloth across the fly of pantaloons to reinforce them against tearing.
"Pope Mfg. Co. v. Gormully Mfg. Co., 144 U.S. 238 (1892): Placing rubber hand grips on bicycle handlebars.
"Knapp v. Morss, 150 U.S. 221 (1893): Applying the principle of the umbrella to a skirt form.
"Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co., 152 U.S. 425 (1894): An oval rather than cylindrical toilet paper roll, to facilitate tearing off strips.
"Dunham v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 154 U.S. 103 (1894): An envelope flap which could be fastened to the envelope in such a fashion that the envelope could be opened without tearing.
"The patent involved in the present case belongs to this list of incredible patents which the Patent Office has spawned. The fact that a patent as flimsy and as spurious as this one has to be brought all the way to this Court to be declared invalid dramatically illustrates how far our patent system frequently departs from the constitutional standards which are supposed to govern." Ibid. 156-158.
[1169] "Inventive genius"--Justice Hunt in Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U.S. 347, 357 (1875); "Genius or invention"--Chief Justice Fuller in Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co., 148 U.S. 674, 681 (1893); "Intuitive genius"--Justice Brown in Potts v. Creager, 155 U.S. 597, 607 (1895); "Inventive genius"--Justice Stone in Concrete Appliances Co. v. Gomery, 269 U.S. 177, 185 (1925); "Inventive genius"--Justice Roberts in Mantle Lamp Co. v. Aluminum Co., 301 U.S. 544, 546 (1937); Justice Douglas in Cuno Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84, 91 (1941); "the flash of creative genius, not merely the skill of the calling." See also Note 2 above. [Transcriber's Note: Reference is to Footnote 1163, above.]
[1170] See Note 7 above. [Transcriber's Note: Reference is to Footnote 1168, above.]
[1171] Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950); Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U.S. 354, 358 (1884).
[1172] Evans v. Eaton, 3 Wheat. 454, 512 (1818).
[1173] United States v. Duell, 172 U.S. 576, 586-589 (1899). See also* Butterworth *v. Hoe, 112 U.S. 50 (1884).
[1174] Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591, 660 (1834); Holmes v. Hurst, 174 U.S. 82 (1899). Cf. E. Burke Inlow, The Patent Clause (1950) Chaps. III and IV, for evidence of a judicial recognition of an inventor's inchoate right to have his invention patented.
[1175] Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591, 662 (1834); Evans v. Jordan, 9 Cr. 199 (1815).