In re Montgomery’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 state decisions

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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““With respect to the element of the claims providing for remote control of the actuating means for adjustment, the examiner said: “ ‘In the first place, the provision of a remote control means broadly for actuating the handwheel of Muehlmatt, even to the extent of using a shaft in the same is not considered to amount to invention. “ ‘Such a means [of remote control] is common in many mechanical installations and its use here would produce no different function or result than would be expected.’ “As will be noted from our quotation from the decision of the board, it was of the opinion that this element does not render the claims containing the same patentable, and it expressed the opinion that the hand wheel of the Muehlmatt patent could, if thought desirable, be positioned at a distance from the chucking element. “The examiner’s statement that the use of a shaft to effect remote control is common in many installations, and its use in appellants' device would produce no different function or result than would be expected, is not challenged in the record. “It appears to us that while appellants’ device is an improvement over the art of record, such improvement involved merely mechanical skill, and we are in agreement with the board that the features embraced in the claims are not sufficiently distinguished from the prior art to present patentable merit.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hughes v. Salem Co-Operative Co.