In re Lindberg’s Empirical Analysis
194 F.2d 732 · 1952
Citation profile
1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably In re Shaffer (1956), In re Bisley (1952)
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
Relies on In re Kaufmann · Ranco, Inc. v. Gwynn · In re Richards · In re Smith
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is well settled that claims may be properly rejected on a combination of several patents taking specific features from each. It is not necessary that a complete disclosure be contained in a single reference. * * * Moreover, a claim may sometimes be properly rejected on a combination of references even though that combination does not show all limitations in the claim, providing such limitations as are not shown are not inventive and patentable over the disclosures of the prior art.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Application of Neely“elements must cooperate in such a manner as to produce a new, unobvious, and unexpected result.”
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.