Wetmore v. Miller’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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he additional restrictions imposed on appellant’s claims by the word “fusible” amounts [sic] to a difference in scope alone. The count has necessarily been considered allowable over the prior art and is broader than appellant’s claims 12, 22 and 23. Therefore, the “fusible” limitation of appellant’s claims must be regarded as not necessary to patentability and not “material” for present purposes. See Stalego v. Heymes, supra [ 263 F.2d 334 , 46 CCPA 772 , 120 USPQ 473 (1959)], wherein the question whether claims are drawn to substantially the same subject matter is equated to whether the differences are material.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nitz v. Ehrenreich

2. “(b) A claim which is the same as, or for the same or substantially the same subject matter as, a claim of an issued patent may not be made in any application unless such a claim is made prior to one year from the date on which the patent was granted. [Emphasis ours.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Corbett v. Chisholm