Samuel P. McCutchen Jr., and Jack E. Eskilson v. Francis A. Oliver’s Empirical Analysis
367 F.2d 609 · 1966
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently June 1987 · most notably Perkin-Elmer Corporation v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation (1987), In re Bass (1973)
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Brenner v. Manson · Hansgirg v. Kemmer · Application of John A. Nelson and Anthony C. Shabica · Lindley v. Shepherd · In re Draeger
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“One cannot arrive at an understanding of the present counts as they relate to the subject matter of the interference without something more than the counts themselves. Admittedly verbal similarities exist between the counts and the respective disclosures of the parties. However, to stop here is to violate the spirit of 35 U.S.C. § 135 which authorizes interferences where two or more parties claim “the same subject matter.” Thus the issue cannot be decided here in the rarified atmosphere of claim semantics. Instead, it must be decided at the down to earth level of what the parties disclosed as “the gist” of their respective inventions. Cf. Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212 , 26 CCPA 937 . While an “unambiguous” count may be interpreted without resort to the specification, the counts here are not of this type. Considering the wording of the counts, particularly the term “reference” surfaces, and the arguments of the parties, it is clear that different meanings are ascribed to that term by the parties when interpreting the count. When resort is had to the specifications, the latent ambiguity in the counts becomes apparent. [Emphasis ours, except “disclosed” in original.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stansbury v. Bond“The Patent Office removed the rejection based on prior art references and the claims, in view of Mc-Cutchen’s arguments, were allowed. Such arguments relied on by the applicant and accepted by the Patent Office to avoid prior art references should be considered in interpreting the claims. Considering the respective inventions and the McCutchen specification and file wrapper, we think the McCutchen co-planar “reference surfaces” are exposed. Oliver does not disclose such “reference surfaces.” Since we find this to be a necessary feature of the invention as defined by the counts, the decision of the board is reversed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stansbury v. Bond“1 According to Rivise and Caesar, § 56 (1940), it is a fundamental rule of count interpretation that “It is proper to compare a count with the other claims of the interfering cases in order to find support for a particular interpretation of the count.” See also Rivise and Caesar, § 67 (1940) which fully considers this rule and cites as authority therefor several cases of this court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bethell v. Koch
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.