In re Eppinger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate ·

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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * In passing it may be proper to say that appellant’s specification and form of claims is quite unusual. It seems to us that the suggestion of the Examiner that appellant was entitled to but one claim, in substantially the form as was suggested, was proper. Ex parte Hopkins, Jr., 1923 C.D. 105. See Rules of Practice in the United States Patent Office Nos. 81, 82, and 84; also form of design application prescribed by the rules.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Rubinfield · In re Rubinfield

2. ““It is equally well-settled law that one is not entitled to a patent for a design merely because the applicant has produced something which differs in appearance from anything previously produced. * * * “We think appellant in his contentions here disregards the necessity for the exercise of the inventive faculties in' producing a patentable design. Carried to their logical conclusion, appellant’s contentions are to the effect that one must be regarded as a design inventor if he produces a design which has a pleasing effect and which differs in appearance from any prior production, irrespective of any other considération. The design patent law grants a limited monopoly to a design inventor. * * * The purpose of the enactment, obviously, was to stimulate the exercise of the inventive faculty in the improvement of the appearance of articles of manufacture.””

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