Byers’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently December 2012
2 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
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 251
Relies on Shepard v. Carrigan · Dobson v. Lees · MacFarland v. Jackson · Ruth E. Riley v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., a Corporation (Formerly Broadway Department Store, Inc., a Corporation) · In re Pirani
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 issue to be determined here is whether the failure to obtain, in the patent sought to be reissued, claims corresponding to those involved in the present appeal was due to “error” within the meaning of the sentence just quoted. The use of the word "error” in that sentence instead of the words “inadvertence, accident or mistake,” which appeared in the corresponding section, 35 U.S.C. § 64 , Section 4916 R.S., of the patent statutes prior to the reeodification of 1952, does not involve a substantive change, and the same type of error is necessary to justify a reissue after the enactment of the Patent Act of 1952 as before. * * *”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re Wesseler · In re Orita“* * * The use of the word `error' in that sentence [35 U.S.C. § 251] instead of the words `inadvertence, accident or mistake,' which appeared in the corresponding section, 35 U.S.C. § 64, Section 4915, R.S., of the patent statutes prior to the recodification of 1952, does not involve a substantive change, and the same type of error is necessary to justify a reissue after the enactment of the Patent Act of 1952 as before. Moist Cold Refrigerator Co. v. Lou Johnson Co., 9 Cir., 217 F.2d 39 ; Riley v. Broadway Hale Stores, 9 Cir., 217 F.2d 530 . Accordingly, decisions as to what constituted inadvertence, accident or mistake under the prior law are pertinent here. [Matter in brackets added.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re Wadlinger · In re DeJarlais“* * * Where an applicant for a patent to cover a new combination is compelled by the rejection of his application by the patent-office to narrow his claim by the introduction of a new element, he cannot after the issue of the patent broaden his claim by dropping the element which he was compelled to include in order to secure his patent. * * *”
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.