In re Lawson’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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It will be observed that the Board was of opinion that appellants’ contribution to the art resided in the specific means, somewhat broadly stated in the allowed claims, by which appellants had solved an obvious - problem, and that, as the appealed claims were sufficiently broad to cover every possible means of accomplishing the desired purpose, they were broader than appellants’ invention. “Counsel for appellants contends that appellants are not attempting to cover ‘all ways of maintaining the sinkers in a forward position but limit the claims to such means as will impose a spring pressure on the sinkers, except at or adjacent to the knitting point.’ However, it is obvious that the appealed claims include all means for accomplishing the precise purpose to which they are directed, that is, the imposition of a spring pressure on the sinkers, ‘except at or adjacent to the knitting point.’ [Italics quoted.] “It may be, as argued by counsel for appellants, that appellants were the first to provide a means to accomplish the desired result. However, they are not, for that reason, entitled to a patent which would include all means for accomplishing such result. See In re Malcolm P. Ferguson, 83 F.(2d) 693 , 23 C.C.P.A., Patents, [1143], [Patent Appeal No. 3625] decided June 1, 1936, wherein we cited and quoted from the case of Heidbrink v. McKesson, [6 Cir.] 290 F. 665 .””

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