Brown v. Brock’s Empirical Analysis
240 F.2d 723 · 1957
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently November 1981 · most notably National Latex Products Co. v. Sun Rubber Co. (1959), Technical Tape Corp. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. (1957)
23 federal appellate · 3 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. · Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · Loom Company v. Higgins · General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp. · Seymour v. Osborne
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The successful Senior doll embodied, for the first time in a doll a liquid container that is rigid, that can be put anywhere in the doll’s body, head, or neck, and need not be adjacent to a rigid wall. The distinctive feature of the combination effected by Senior is that the water container itself need not be squeezed, reduced, or collapsed. It permits, instead, pressure on any part of the doll’s body to force air into the upper part of the container, which, in turn, causes the liquid to be forced upward through conducting tubes to the eyes. This is new in dolls.” 240 F.2d at page 726 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * The contention of obviousness is more readily conceived after the event than is the solution while the problem remains unsolved. In respect to patents, as in other concerns of life, human experience teaches that ‘obviousness’ is often much clearer after the event than before; solutions which have remained persistently elusive leap distinctly into view after someone else has pointed them out. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““While the claims should be construed in the light of the specification to obtain an understanding thereof, the limitations specified cannot be read into the claims.” Brown v. Brock, 240 F.2d 723, 728 (4th Cir. 1957).”
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.