In re Lee’s Empirical Analysis
193 F.2d 186 · 1951
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 33
Relies on Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. · Williams Mfg Co v. United Shoe Machinery Corporation · Faulkner v. Gibbs · In re Stover · International Standard Electric Corp. v. Kingsland
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Solicitor for the Patent Office has correctly pointed out in his brief, and cited authority to the effect, that it is not necessary in order to make a valid combination of references to prove that a part of one device may be physically inserted into another, where the cited references suggest the modification in such a way that any person skilled in the art could make it. * * * On the other hand, appellant cites authority of this court, * * * and of the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office, * * * to the effect that a basic reference and additional references having features somewhat analogous to those disclosed by appealed claims, which require material and radical modification in order to conform to appellant’s claims, are not valid references unless they show an equivalent and operative combination which obviously could be substituted to meet the appealed claims by any skilled mechanic.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re Irmscher · In re Irmscher
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.