Ballantyne Instruments & Electronics, Inc. v. Wagner’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co. · Exhibit Supply Co. v. Ace Patents Corp. · Mumm v. Jacob E. Decker & Sons · Continental Ore Company v. Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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 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 to which said subject matter pertains.”
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.