In re Buttolph’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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We are not unmindful of the fact that it is sometimes difficult to define an alleged invention with conciseness and pre cisión. However, such difficulty ought not to be used as an excuse to present an unnecessarily large number of claims, the net result of which is to confuse, rather than to clarify, the issues relative to an alleged improvement, which, it is claimed, involves invention. [Italics added.] “Although we are in entire accord with the specific reasons assigned and discussed by the Board of Appeals in its rejection of the appealed claims, we are of opinion, nevertheless, that they might well have been rejected on the sole ground of undue multiplicity. In re Duncan, 49 App. D.C. 372 , 265 F. 1012 , affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Patents in Ex parte Duncan, 1920, C.D. 36. See, also, In re Daun [ 47 F.2d 356 , 18 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1031], supra; In re Spencer [ 47 F.2d 806 , 18 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1041], supra.””

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