9e (1946).
[1148] Electric Bond & Share Co. _v._ Securities and Exchange Comm'n.,
303 U.S. 419 (1938).
[1149] Ibid. 442.
[1150] Pensacola Teleg. Co. _v._ Western U. Teleg. Co., 90 U.S. 1
(1878).
[1151] Illinois C.R. Co. _v._ Illinois ex rel. Butler, 163 U.S. 142
(1896).
[1152] Gladson _v._ Minnesota, 166 U.S. 427 (1897).
[1153] Price _v._ Pennsylvania R. Co., 113 U.S. 218 (1885); Martin _v._
Pittsburgh & L.E.R. Co., 203 U.S. 284 (1906).
[1154] Railway Mail Assn. _v._ Corsi, 326 U.S. 88 (1945).
[1155] United States _v._ Kirby, 7 Wall. 482 (1869).
[1156] Johnson _v._ Maryland, 254 U.S. 51 (1920).
[1157] Pennock _v._ Dialogue, 2 Pet. 1, 17, 18 (1829).
[1158] Wheaton _v._ Peters, 8 Pet. 591, 656, 658 (1834).
[1159] Kendall _v._ Winsor, 21 How. 322, 328 (1859); Great Atlantic &
Pacific Tea Co. _v._ Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950).
[1160] Evans _v._ Jordan, 9 Cr. 199 (1815); Bloomer _v._ McQuewan, 14
How. 539, 548 (1852); Bloomer _v._ Millinger, 1 Wall. 340, 350 (1864);
Eunson _v._ Dodge, 18 Wall. 414, 416 (1873).
[1161] Brown _v._ Duchesne, 19 How. 183, 195 (1857).
[1162] Seymour _v._ Osborne, 11 Wall. 516, 549 (1871). _Cf._ Union Paper
Collar Co. _v._ Van Dusen, 23 Wall. 530, 563 (1875); Reckendorfer _v._
Faber, 92 U.S. 347, 356 (1876).
[1163] Smith _v._ Nichols, 21 Wall. 112, 118 (1875).
[1164] Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. _v._ Howard, 20 Wall. 498, 507 (1874);
Clark Thread Co. _v._ Willimantic Linen Co., 140 U.S. 481, 489 (1891).
[1165] Funk Bros. Seed Co. _v._ Kalo Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948).
_Cf._ Dow Chemical Co. _v._ Halliburton Co., 324 U.S. 320 (1945); Cuno
Corp. _v._ Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84, 89 (1941).
[1166] Sinclair & Carroll Co. _v._ Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327
(1945); Marconi Wireless Teleg. Co. _v._ United States, 320 U.S. 1
(1943).
[1167] Keystone Mfg. Co. _v._ Adams, 151 U.S. 139 (1894); Diamond Rubber
Co. _v._ Consolidated Tire Co., 220 U.S. 428 (1911).
[1168] Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. _v._ Supermarket Equipment
Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950). An interesting concurring opinion was filed
by Justice Douglas for himself and Justice Black: "It is not enough,"
says Justice Douglas, "that an article is new and useful. The
Constitution never sanctioned the patenting of gadgets. Patents serve a
higher end--the advancement of science. An invention need not be as
startling as an atomic bomb to be patentable. But it has to be of such
qu
|