In re Dichter’s Empirical Analysis
110 F.2d 664 · 1940
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently May 1974
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 Wheeler · Pepsodent Co. v. Comfort Mfg. Co. · In re Thomas
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When an appeal is taken to the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, the appellant shall give notice thereof to the Commissioner, and shall file in the Patent •Office his reasons of appeal, specifically set forth in xoriting, within such time after the date of the decision appealed from, not less than ■sixty days, as the Commissioner appoints.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The alleged reasons of appeal filed herein on February 16, 1939, are merely statements that the Board of Appeals erred. They contain no specification as to what error the board committed. If, in fact, the board did commit error it has not been pointed out. The alleged reasons of appeal lack vitality, and, in reality are not reasons of appeal within the meaning of the statute. The appellant, therefore, has failed to comply with section 4912, R.S., supra, and his failure to do so precludes our consideration of the appeal because section 4914, R.S., supra, which provides that this court shall ‘revise the decision appealed from’ also provides that ‘the revision shall be confined to the points set forth in the reasons of appeal.’ It being mandatory that we confine our revision ‘to the points set forth in the reasons of appeal,’ and there being no points set forth in the notice of appeal filed herein, we are without authority to revise the decision of the board. See In re Thomas & Hochwalt, 83 F.2d 902 , 23 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1238; and In re Wheeler, 83 F.2d 904 , 23 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1241.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“shall be confined to the points set forth in the reasons of appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.