In re Caunt’s Empirical Analysis
81 F.2d 405 · 1936
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 33
Relies on Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co. · Smith v. Snow · Deering v. Winona Harvester Works · Buckeye Incubator Co. v. Wolf · United Verde Copper Co. v. Peirce-Smith Converter Co.
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It seems to us, as it evidently did to the tribunals of the Patent Office, that appellant makes his steps dependent upon the result obtained rather that the result dependent upon the steps. In no one of his claims is there recited a speed of rotation, and in only claim 39 is any specific temperature mentioned. “The claims teach nothing more than that to obtain a certain result heat must be supplied at some temperature and the retort rotated at some speed. Supplying some temperature to material and rotating the retort at some speed is old in the art. At most, appellant only teaches a different result. He obtains a coke product in the form of a core, where others obtain it in the form of balls. “When appellant’s result is disregarded and his steps alone are looked to, the claims which, as so often has been declared, constitute the measure of the invention, teach the art nothing new. “If appellant does produce something different from the article produced by Wisner’s process, it would seem, as is, in effect, said by the Board, that it must be due to some step different from Wisner’s steps. Had appellant disclosed and claimed such a step, a different question would be presented, but no such step, as a step, is claimed. “Reduced to the final analysis, the case presents itself to us as though one were saying to the public: ‘If you would obtain a core of coke of the kind described, apply the proper temperatures and rotate the retort at the proper speeds; you must determine for your”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re Duggan · In re Duggan““21. In the process of carbonizing solid carbonizable material in a retort, the steps comprising supplying the material to the retort, applying heat thereto at such temperature and moving the retort relative to the material at such speed as to carbonise the material and to form a core of adherent coked material extending throughout a substantial portion of the length of the retort and independent of the retort wall.” (Italics ours.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Duggan
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.