Prichard v. Setzler’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate ·

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

1. ““1. A process for treating petroleum or its derivatives, which consists in introducing the same to a sealed retort, establishing and maintaining therein a temperature and pressure for cracking a gasoline content therefrom, and meantime subjecting the interior of the retort to the action of an abrading and agitating movable member, whereby carbon is separated and maintained in a suspended state and the reaction is furthered, substantially as set forth. “2. A process for treating petroleum or its derivatives, which consists in introducing the same to a pressure still, establishing and maintaining the temperature in said still at approximately the point for separating out a portion of the combined carbon, subjecting the more highly heated portions of the still interiorly to an actuated abrading member, for preventing the deposit of said carbon, withdrawing the newly formed hydrocarbon products, and supplying additional quantities of the hydrocarbon under treatment, substantially as set forth.””

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

2. ““ * * * The position taken by the Office that there is no patentable distinction between these two counts, because the prior art supplied the additional step defined in count 2, apparently is sound; but, inasmuch as our jurisdiction here is limited to a determination of the question of priority, we are not at liberty to pass upon this ruling.””

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