Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 143 F.2d 971 - In re Berger

In re Berger’s Empirical Analysis

143 F.2d 971 · 1944

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
June 1965
most recently cited

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently June 1965

50194419501960decided

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 Corona Cord Tire Co. v. Dovan Chemical Corp. · Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. · In re Greider · In re Dreyfus · In re Sibley

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

  1. ““Appellant here contends that none of the references except Nanfeldt and Achtmeyer relate to brake linings; that Nanfeldt’s rubber binders are obviously entirely different from those of appellant; that the British patents, while disclosing aminotriazinc-aldehyde resins, do not suggest in any way that these resins might be useful as binders in brake linings; that it was not obvious to use aminotriazine-aldehyde resins in this respect because other closely analogous resins, such as the urea-formaldehyde resins, are unsuitable for use as brake linings; and that experimentation was required to discover that the aminotriazinealdehyde resins are suitable as brake linings. In short, it is the contention of appellant that wherever ‘experimentation is required, invention of a patentable degree is made’; £ * % “In answer to appellant’s contention that where ‘experimentation is required, invention of a patentable degree is made,’ it is sufficient to say that the cases cited do not support the broad statement of appellant. Experimentation may produce a result through the exercise of the inventive faculty. This has been held to be true in cases where the art taught that the thing could not be done, or did not suggest that it might be done, or where catalytic action or the use of some material was wholly unpredictable. [Italics quoted.] ****** “It is our view that the Board of Appeals committed no error in affirming the action of the examiner in disallowing the claims, for the reasons stat”
    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.