Application of David Gregg’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently March 1973
5 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 In re Stattmann · In re Seid · In re Chase · In re Carr · In re Boileau
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It was well settled prior to the 1952 Act that a patent issued on an application which was copending with that of another applicant could properly be used as a reference against the claims of the other applicant even though it did not disclose everything claimed, and it was necessary to combine it with other references. (Citation omitted). There is nothing to indicate that any change in that practice was contemplated by the Congress when it enacted the Patent Act of 1952.” At p. 319 of 244 F.2d.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such * * * »”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The award of priority in the interference was a final determination that any invention common to appellant’s application and that of Coakwell was made by Coakwell prior to appellant’s invention thereof. Coakwell’s disclosure [ 5 ] thus constitutes prior art vñtMn the meaning of section 108 (g) of the Patent Act of 1952 and, in accordance with section 103 of that Act, appellant may not obtain any claim which distinguishes from Coakwell’s disclosure [5] only in matters which would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. * * * * * * * We are uñadle to agree wilh appellant that the prior art referred to in section 10S of the 1952 Act is limited to art which was avalladle to the pudlic prior to the date of the applicant’s invention.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Bass
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.