ton _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); "
|