Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 195 F.2d 921 - In re Osplack

In re Osplack’s Empirical Analysis

195 F.2d 921 · 1952

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
January 1973
most recently cited

1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently January 1973 · most notably In re Bisley (1952), In re Sporck (1962)

1 district ·

250195219601970decided

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 Carnegie Steel Company v. Cambria Iron Company · Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ray-O-Vac Co. · In re De Lancey · Baldwin-Southwark Corp. v. Tinius Olsen Testing Mach. Co.

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

  1. “* * * the conception of doing a thing, the result of which is new and useful, must be considered along with the actual steps of doing it in considering the presence or absence of patentability. * * *”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““We think this case is one of that category of inventions which, when viewed after disclosure and explanation by an applicant, seem simple and such as should have been obvious to those in the field. Yet this does not necessarily negative invention or patentability. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc. [et al.] v. Ray-O-Vac Co., 321 U.S. 275 , 64 S.Ct. 593 , 88 L.Ed. 721 ; In re DeLancey, 159 F.2d 737 , 34 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 849. Indeed, simplicity may even be some evidence of invention. Baldwin-Southwark Corporation v. Tinius Olsen Testing Mach. Co. [et al.], 3 Cir., 88 F.2d 910 .””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “in affirming the examiner's rejection of”
    2 later decisions 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.