Hays v. Brenner’s Empirical Analysis
357 F.2d 287 · 1966
Citation profile
12 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently July 1983 · most notably In re Bowers (1966), Commissioner of Patents v. Deutsche Gold-und-Silber-Scheideanstalt Vormals Roessler (1968)
12 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 Miller v. Eagle Manuf'G Co · International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Anderson · Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. Brenner · The Suffolk Company v. Hayden · Washington v. Summerfield
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.
“* * * if the examiner is satisfied that the claimed invention is clearly obvious in view of the teachings of the prior art, to a person having ordinary skill in the pertinent art, then a patent should not be granted even if affidavits, terminal disclaimers, and the like are presented by the applicant, since such papers cannot change what is obvious so it may become unobvious and therefore a patentable invention. [Emphasis added.] 825 O.G. at 827.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * Here the action of the Patent Office denying the Hays application as obvious under § 103 is reinforced by the finding of the District Court to the same effect. We affirm that finding. * * * * * * Since appellants’ contention for patentability based on the filing of the terminal disclaimer assumes obviousness, § 103 is an absolute bar to the grant of a patent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is true that in both Robeson, supra, and Kaye, supra, the double patenting rejections which we found to be obviated by the terminal disclaimer were predicated in each case on the same inventorship. However, we find this to be a distinction without legal significance in the present context. Statutory authority for the terminal disclaimer here in issue is found in 35 U.S.C. § 253 , the second paragraph of which provides; In like manner any patentee or applicant may disclaim or dedicate to the public the entire term, or any terminal part of the term, of the patent granted or to be granted. It is to be noted that the parties authorized by the statute to file the terminal disclaimer are “any patentee or applicant.” It seems clear that Congress intended that the remedies of this section were also to be available to assignees in view of the express provision of 35 U.S.C. § 100 (d) that: (d) The word “patentee” includes not only the patentee to whom the patent was issued but also the successors in title to the patentee.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Borg
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.