"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 d.i.c.kie 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 sp.a.w.ned. 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 ill.u.s.trates how far our patent system frequently departs from the const.i.tutional 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_ b.u.t.terworth _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, 203 U.S. 358 (1906); Ozan Lumber Co. _v._ Union County Bank, 207 U.S.

251 (1907).

[1186] Fox Film Corp. _v._ Doyal, 280 U.S. 123 (1932)--overruling Long _v._ Rockwood, 277 U.S. 142 (1928).

[1187] 100 U.S. 82 (1879).

[1188] Ibid. 94.

[1189] Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. _v._ Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884).

[1190] Bleistein _v._ Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239, 252 (1903).

[1191] Kent, Commentaries, 1-2, (12th ed. 1873).

[1192] XIX Journals of the Continental Congress 315, 361 (1912). XX Id.

762, XXI id. 1136-1137, 1158.

[1193] Article IX.

[1194] Madison, Journal of the Const.i.tutional Convention, II, 82 (Hunt's ed. 1908).

[1195] Ibid. 185-186, 372.

[1196] United States _v._ Smith, 5 Wheat. 153, 160, 162 (1820). _See also_ The Marianna Flora, 11 Wheat. 1, 40-41 (1826); United States _v._ Brig Malek Abhel, 2 How. 210, 232 (1844).

[1197] 317 U.S. 1, 27 (1942).

[1198] Ibid. 28.

[1199] United States _v._ Arjona, 120 U.S. 479, 487, 488 (1887).

[1200] United States _v._ Flores, 3 F. Supp. 134 (1932).

[1201] 289 U.S. 137, 149-150 (1933).

[1202] United States _v._ Furlong, 5 Wheat. 184, 200 (1920).

[1203] The Federalist No. 23.

[1204] Penhallow _v._ Doane, 3 Dall. 54 (1795).

[1205] 4 Wheat. 316 (1819).

[1206] Ibid. 407. Emphasis supplied.

[1207] Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 139 (1866) (dissenting opinion); _see also_ Miller _v._ United States, 11 Wall. 268, 305 (1871); and United States _v._ Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, 622 (1931).

[1208] 58 Cong. Globe, 37th Cong., 1st sess., App. 1 (1861).