Wood v. Kahn
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- Cutler Mail Chute Co. v. American Mailing Device Corp. (2d Cir. 1917)
- Bloom v. Furness-Withy & Co. (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1923)
- Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Norton Iron Works (6th Cir. 1922)
- National Dredging & Lighterage Co. v. Turney Transp. Co. (3d Cir. 1922)
- United Fuel & Supply Co. v. Interlake S. S. Co. (6th Cir. 1921)
- Ætna Ins. v. Davidson S. S. Co. (7th Cir. 1919)
- Chicago, D. & G. B. Transit Co. v. Moore (6th Cir. 1919)
- The Martin Mullen (6th Cir. 1919)
- Estep v. Kentland Coal & Coke Co. (6th Cir. 1917)
- Lew Loy v. United States (6th Cir. 1917)
- St. Bernard v. Shane (6th Cir. 1915)
- Pittsburgh S. S. Co. v. Duluth S. S. Co. (6th Cir. 1915)
- Argo S. S. Co. v. Buffalo S. S. Co. (6th Cir. 1915)
- The Horsa (District Court, E.D. South Carolina 1915)
- The Elenore (6th Cir. 1914)
- Contino v. Wilmington Steamboat Co. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1914)
- Pugh v. Snodgrass (6th Cir. 1913)
- Carey v. Donohue (6th Cir. 1913)
- The St. David (District Court, W.D. Washington 1913)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
We agree fully with the opinion of Judge Hough that the method of sawing a diamond described and claimed does not involve invention. The fact that the object to be divided is of great value does not change what would otherwise be mechanical skill into invention. It might, as pointed out, require unusual courage for the operator .to risk such a process on so valuable an article, but courage is not patentable.
We deem it unnecessary to add anything to the opinion of the Circuit Court.
The decree is affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.