In re Schreiber’s Empirical Analysis
128 F.3d 1473 · 1997
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 27 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 123 later decisions — most recently October 2021 · most notably Telemac Cellular Corporation v. Topp Telecom Inc (2001), Finnigan Corporation v. International Trade Commission (1999)
24 federal appellate · 27 district ·
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
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 103
Relies on Warner-Jenkinson Company Inc v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co · Wl Gore Associates Inc v. Garlock Inc · Continental Can Company Usa Inc v. Monsanto Company · Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc. · Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Electric U.S.A., Inc.
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 123 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.” Patentability, however,. is not at issue here; rather, the issue here is claim construction. , Therefore, the court finds In re Schreiber to be inapposite, at least at this procedural juncture. Defendants have cited no authority that actually supports their argument that the court should entirely disregard these claim limitations. In any event, the parties discuss these limitations only insofar as they are pertinent to construing the language of the preamble. They do not ask the court to construe these limitations beyond what is already stated in the claim elements. The court will accordingly limit its discussion of this issue to the parties’ arguments. 3 . Plaintiffs argue the two-dimensional dictionary definition applies only to surfaces or other two-dimensional structures, not three-dimensional structures like lids and membranes. The dictionary, however, does not state that a planar structure is perfectly flat and two-dimensional. The dictionary uses the term "surface” and "two-dimensional”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] patent applicant is free to recite features of an apparatus either structurally or functionally”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.