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).
[1176] Kalem Co. _v._ Harper Bros. 222 U.S. 55 (1911).
[1177] Baker _v._ Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 105 (1880).
[1178] Stevens _v._ Gladding, 17 How. 447 (1855).
[1179] Ager _v._ Murray, 105 U.S. 126 (1882).
[1180] James _v._ Campbell, 104 U.S. 356, 358 (1882). _See also_ United
States _v._ Burns, 12 Wall. 246, 252 (1871); Cammeyer _v._ Newton, 94
U.S. 225, 234 (1877); Hollister _v._ Benedict Manufacturing Co., 113
U.S. 59, 67 (1885); United States _v._ Palmer, 128 U.S. 262, 271 (1888);
Belknap _v._ Schild, 161 U.S. 10, 16 (1896).
[1181] McClurg _v._ Kingsland, 1 How. 202, 206 (1843).
[1182] Bloomer _v._ McQuewan, 14 How. 539, 553 (1852).
[1183] _See_ Motion Picture Co. _v._ Universal Film Co., 243 U.S. 502
(1917); Morton Salt Co. _v._ Suppiger Co., 314 U.S. 488 (1942); United
States _v._ Masonite Corp., 316 U.S. 265 (1942); and United States _v._
New Wrinkle, Inc., 342 U.S. 371 (1952), where the Justices divide 6 to 3
as to the significance for the case of certain leading precedents. _See
also_ Inlow, The Patent Clause, Chap. V.
[1184] Patterson _v._ Kentucky, 97 U.S. 501 (1879).
[1185] Allen _v._ Riley, 203 U.S. 347 (1906): Woods & Sons _v._ Carl,
20
|