In re Pedersen’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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It seems clear that the determination of the patentability of the apparatus claims in appellant’s application does not necessarily determine the patentability of his process and product claims. His apparatus claims may embody an invention, while his process and product claims may not. If the process claims are not dependent upon the apparatus described and claimed in'the application, but may be performed by hand or upon other machines, it would seem that two distinct inventions would be involved if the process claims are patentable. This observation may also be made as to the product claims. !¡C ********* “As we construe the above-quoted language of the Supreme Court [referring to United States ex rel. Steinmetz v. Allen, supra], we would not be warranted in reversing the decision of the Patent Office tribunals in requiring division . of appellant’s application unless there was an abuse of discretion upon their part in determining that the . inventions here involved are not so closely related that division would be improper. “Upon the record before us, we cannot find that there was any such abuse of discretion. If the process and product claims, or any of them, are patentable per se, and a separate patent should issue therefor, we have no doubt that such patent would be sustained by the courts, irrespective of the issue of a'separate patent upon appellant’s apparatus claims.””

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