McCormick v. Malherbe’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““McCormick argues more to the effect that any one carrying out the McCormick teachings and being skilled in the art would, if desirable, separately treat with fresh sulphuric acid a cracked distillate that had been previously treated with straight run sludge. If it were conceded that one skilled in the art ‘might’ do so, we do not think that this fact alone would justify the conclusion that the invention of the counts was disclosed in the McCormick application. Under circumstances like those at bar, for a disclosure to support interference counts, there must be more than a possibility that a certain process will be followed if the teachings are followed. There must be some positive, definite disclosure of the steps of the process, or such a disclosure of steps that if the teachings are followed by one skilled in the art the process must inevitably result. Hansgirg v. Kemmer, supra [ 102 F.2d 212 , 26 C.C.P.A., Patents, 937]; Brand v. Thomas, 96 F.2d 301 , 25 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1053.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Bertsch