In re Cooper’s Empirical Analysis
134 F.2d 630 · 1943
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1981
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. § 31 · 35 U.S.C. § 33
Relies on Becket v. Coe · In re Pilling · In re Lothrop · In re Gillett · In re Becket
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The appellants have set out a formula for determination of the carbon content of steel corresponding to given quantities of the alloying elements. This, however, is not patentable per se as it does not fall within any of the statutory classes of invention as set out in section 4886, R.S., 35 U.S.C.A. § 31. Patentability of the claims may not rest solely on the fact that the carbon contents specified therein are calculated from the formula.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ * * * if the prior art shows a range, as appellants apparently admit it does in this case, which includes the range claimed in their application, in the absence of 'the production of a different product they are not entitled to a patent.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Benner
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.