Skip to content
Try for free
Back to judgment

Citation network

Knapp Vs. Morss

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 20, 1893

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

40 entries 14 linked 26 unlinked
Show
  1. Sutter Vs. Robinson US Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1886
  2. Reckendorfer Vs. Faber US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1875
  3. Pickering Vs. Mccullough US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1881
  4. Peters Vs. Hanson US Supreme Court · Mar 05, 1889
  5. Corning Vs. Burden US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1853
  6. Thatcher Heating Co. Vs. Burtis US Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1887
  7. Grant Vs. Walter US Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1893
  8. Gordon Vs. Warder US Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1893
  9. Bragg Vs. Fitch US Supreme Court · May 02, 1887
  10. Crawford Vs. Heysinger US Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1887
  11. Dryfoos Vs. Wiese US Supreme Court · Jan 09, 1888
  12. Eddy Vs. Dennis US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1877
  13. Mccormick Vs. Talcott US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1857
  14. Carver Vs. Hyde US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1842
  15. U.S. 221 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court Knapp v. Morss
    Search
  16. U.S. 221 (1893) Knapp v. Morss
    Search
  17. cannot be so construed as to cover Page 150 U. S. 225 either what was rejected by the Patent Office, Shepard v. Carrigan
    Search
  18. which involves patentable novelty. In support of the validity of the patent, the principle stated in Loom Co. v. Higgins
    Search
  19. which perform no new function and accomplish no new results does not involve patentable novelty. Mosler Safe Co. v. Mosler
    Search
  20. Hailes v. Van
    Search
  21. is the device or mechanical means by which the desired Page 150 U. S. 228 result is to be secured. Carver v. Hyde
    Search
  22. the application of old devices to a new use, and this involved hardly more than mechanical skill, as was ruled in Aron v. Manhattan
    Search
  23. Peters v. Active
    Search
  24. the letters of reference in the drawings, and each element specifically pointed out is an essential part thereof. Duff v. Sterling
    Search
  25. Newton v. Furst
    Search
  26. part of appellants if a single element of the patentee's combination is left out of the appellants' device. Sargent v. Hall
    Search
  27. were not radical in their character, I think they were such as to involve invention within the rule stated in Loom Co. v. Higgins
    Search
  28. Gandy v. Main
    Search
  29. Belting Co., 143 U. S. 587 , 143 U. S. 12 Sup.Ct. Rep. 598, and Topliff v. Topliff
    Search
  30. U.S. Supreme Court Knapp v. Morss
    Search
  31. the Patent Office, Shepard v. Carrigan
    Search
  32. Loom Co. v. Higgins
    Search
  33. Mosler Safe Co. v. Mosler
    Search
  34. Aron v. Manhattan
    Search
  35. Duff v. Sterling
    Search
  36. Sargent v. Hall
    Search
  37. and Topliff v. Topliff
    Search
  38. Le Roy v. Tatham
    Search
  39. Burr v. Duryee
    Search
  40. Fuller v. Yentzer
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales