James Harding v. Samuel Steingiser and Ival O. Salyer’s Empirical Analysis
318 F.2d 748 · 1963
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently September 1994
1 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
Relies on Frederick F. Blicke v. Gino R. Treves · Arthur W. Schnick v. Lawrence E. Fenn · William C. Elmore v. William F. Schmitt · Swihart v. United States · Romey A. Gaiser v. Cyril S. Linder
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * A composition of matter cannot be a patentable invention unless it has utility. In re Bremner [et al.,] 182 F.2d 216 , 37 C.C.P.A. Patents, 1032. Accordingly, the invention of such a composition is not complete unless its utility is either obvious or is established by proper tests, regardless of whether the claims contain any specific reference to utility.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rimbach v. Wanmaker
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.