In re McKee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In view of that decision [appeal No. 744] it is believed that it is better to take the same action on this ease in order that both applicants may be treated alike. The following excerpts from the other decision clearly present the views of this tribunal upon this question and we are fully in accord with the holding in that decision. “The references relied upon are: Conway, 996,004, June 20, 1911, Waite, 1,188,588, June 27, 1916, Golding, 1,481,864, Jan. 29, 1924, Fiedler, 1,704,124, Mar. 5, 1929, Patton, 1,712,518; May 14, 1929, Naylor, 1,699,-013, Jan. 15, 1929. “The principal object of the invention is to provide a meat product in the form of a carcass or cut of meat having the surface thereof marked with a repetition of the trade name or brand of the packer or distributor, so that when carcass or cut is subdivided each subdivision. will bear the identifying mark or brand. One group of the claims is directed to the cut of meat with the series of identifying marks thereon and another group is directed'to the method of making this meat product or the method of marking the product. “Several references are cited to indicate the marking of various articles with a series of marks. Of these the patent to Patton for marking sole leather may be taken as an example. This patent discloses markings placed in series over the surface of sole leather so that however the leather may be cut up, the manufacturer’s name will appear. This patent also discloses that heretofore it has been cust”

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

2. ““In oral argument and in brief counsel has urged that under the case of Cincinnati Traction Company v. Pope [6 Cir.,], 210 F. 443 , his claims should be allowed. Thqt case is quite a famous one and may be said to be the leading case in this field. The patent involved' a railway ticket comprising a body portion and a coupon, the ticket hearing conventional indications showing that the body alone was good at one time of the day and that the body and the coupon were required for the other portion of the day. The court there held that the device of the patent clearly involved physical structure and that the claims were limited to such structure. “We see nothing more in appellant’s alleged invention than the arrangement of printed matter upon meat. We are not impressed with the contention that the Cincinnati Traction Company case, supra, is authority for sustaining appellant’s contention. On the contrary, the case is easily distinguishable from the case at bar. There the material upon which the printing appeared had a novel form, which form served a new and useful purpose. In the case at bar, the form of the meat is not in any respect made to depend upon the printing arrangement.””

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

3. “A principal cut of meat bearing a series of identifying marlcs in relatively close spaced relation and having their longitudinal axes arranged substantially parallel to the planes in which said meat is to be subdivided in forming minor cuts of meat for purchasers.”

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