In re Smyth’s Empirical Analysis
189 F.2d 982 · 1951
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently June 1998 · most notably In re Gosteli (1989), Hyatt v. Boone (1998)
1 federal appellate · 1 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. § 33
Relies on Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu · In re Oppenauer · Fishburn v. Vincent · Cooper v. Downing
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Perhaps the situation may be comprehended more readily when it is stated that, in our opinion, the case requires precisely the same consideration it would receive if the British provisional specification constituted the entire specification of appellant’s United States application. In other words, if there were here an application for patent the specification of which contained only the provisional specification of appellant’s British patent, without drawings or other indicia, could such specification properly be held to meet the requirements of R.S. 4888, 35 U.S.C.A. § 33 , for a written description defining the manner and process of making and using the device for which patent is sought in such full, clear, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the television art to make, construct, and use the same? That is what the statute demands; it is not satisfied with less; and the matter must be tested by that requirement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kawai v. Metlesics
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.