In re Burns’s Empirical Analysis
83 F.2d 292 · 1936
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 1960 · most notably In re Ferenci (1936), In re W. A. Sheaffer Pen Co. (1946)
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on In re Ferenci · In re Ferenci
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Counsel for appellant state in their brief that: “ ‘It cannot be conceded that hand manufacture of his package could result in quantity production thereof by a mechanical process at low cost * * *. “ ‘The Board of Appeals proposition that where an article can be made by more than one process, an invention relating to the article is a different one from a patentable process for producing the article, is not supported by the record, which fails to disclose any such process; and appellant is aware of none.’ “Although counsel for appellant are unwilling to concede the correctness of the statements of fact made by the tribunals of the Patent Office, there is nothing of record tending to establish that those statements are erroneous, and we must look to the record, not to the brief of counsel, for information on the subject. We are of opinion, therefore, that the principles announced in the Ferenci case, supra, are applicable to the issues in the case at bar, and that the requirement of division was proper.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Smith““Both the examiner and the Board of Appeals, in their respective opinions, have pointed out that the package of appellant may be produced by other than his process, and have specified other methods — such, for instance, as by hand, or by different machines in various ways, and, even if it be conceded that the process claimed would produce only the product claimed, the reverse of this, viz., that only appellant’s particular claimed process would produce the claimed product, is not true. “Such being the case, we are of the opinion that the product claims cover a different inventive act from that covered by the method claims, and agree with the Board of Appeals that division was properly required.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Smith
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.