Application of Stanley’s Empirical Analysis
214 F.2d 151 · 1954
Citation profile
9 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently March 2010 · most notably In re Goodman (1993), Preformed Line Products Company v. The Fanner Manufacturing Company, Preformed Line Products Company, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. The Fanner Manufacturing Company, Defendant-Cross-Appellee (1964)
9 federal appellate ·
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 Ball v. United States · Miller v. Eagle Manuf'G Co · O'Reilly v. Morse · Saranac Automatic Mach Corporation v. Wirebounds Patents Co · Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Ohio Brass 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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * where the second patent covers matter described in the prior patent, essentially distinct and separable from the invention covered thereby, and claims made thereunder, its validity may be sustained. [Emphasis ours.]”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re Allen · In re Borah““The Patent Office relies on the alleged fact, found by both the examiner and the board, that the claims on appeal do not patentably distinguish over the patent claims to Truitt. If this is true, then the claims must be rejected since an inventor can only receive one patent for one inventive thought, and this rule applies in the case of a common assignee. * * * ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The case of In re Calvert, 97 F.2d 638 , 25 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1333, involved a fact situation very similar to that now before us, with the exception that the same inventor was involved in both the patent and the application. There the appellant had filed his application on a broad invention, and about four months later filed an application on an improvement over the broad invention. A patent first issued on the improvement, the claims of which were then used to reject the claims to the broad invention. The sole issue before this court was the rejection on double patenting. We reversed the Board of Appeals because we were of the opinion that the claims of the patent required the presence of a specific element not found in the claims to the generic invention.”
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.