Carl F. Prutton v. Everett W. Fuller and Ellwood M. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
230 F.2d 459 · 1956
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently October 2002 · most notably In Re Scott T Jolley, George E. Hall, Jr. v. Louis B. Taylor (1964)
4 federal appellate · 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 Lindley v. Shepherd · Bierly v. Happoldt · Engelbrecht v. Rogers · Application of Prutton
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The question as to whether an application forms a proper support for a claim to a composition which is not specifically disclosed, but which falls among compositions suggested by general language in the application is one which must be determined largely by the particular circumstances of each case. The determining factor is whether the application would fairly suggest to the skilled worker in the art the particular composition claimed, or whether the desirability of that composition could be ascertained only by extensive experimentation.... [T]he indication or lack of indication of a preference for the composition, in the application disclosure, is an important factor to be considered in making the determination, since anyone attempting to carry out the disclosure of an application would logically begin with the preferred examples given.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re Honn · In re Jolley“It is clear, however, that when an applicant recites two or more lists of ingredients and indicates that any one in one list may be combined with any one in another, he is not necessarily entitled to claim any specific combination of elements which may fall within the scope of such a disclosure, and we have so held. [Authorities cited.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hunt v. Treppschuh“* * * anyone attempting to carry out the disclosure of an application would logically begin with the preferred examples given.”
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.