L-O-F Glass Fibers Co. v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis
228 F.2d 40 · 1955
Citation profile
53 federal appellate · 13 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently June 1974 · most notably R. M. Palmer Co. v. Luden's, Inc. (1956), Commissioner of Patents v. Deutsche Gold-und-Silber-Scheideanstalt Vormals Roessler (1968)
53 federal appellate · 13 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. § 103
Relies on Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. · Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co. · Cuno Engineering Corporation v. Automatic Devices Corporation · Loom Company v. Higgins · Illinois ex rel. Kennedy v. Hurley
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ■» * * 'whether the structure set forth in claims 1, 2, 9, 23 and 24 [claims 24, 25 and 26 herein] of the appellants’ application differs from the structure shown in the Barnard and Staelin patents [Yasoshima and Suter patents herein] in such a way that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““While there is evidence upon which, in part, the findings can be supported, on the entire evidence we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. On the record made and with the exhibits before us, we are permitted a ‘subjective opinion or formulation of a judgment,’ which when so credited, makes clear that the ‘combination and improvement admittedly brought about are the product of creative talent’ which lifts the * * * claim to the level of patentability over and above the prior art cited.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Young v. Watson“We are bound first to look into the prior art to ascertain what may be the real merit of the invention and to decide whether or not it has substantially advanced the art.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.