Application of Hans Hilmer, Gerhard Korger, Rudi Weyer and Walter Aumuller’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. Eastman Kodak Company (1980), In re Land (1966)
3 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
Relies on Helvering v. Winmill · Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co. · Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu · Brenner v. Manson · Helvering v. Reynolds
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Much confused thinking could be avoided by realizing that rejections are based on statutory provisions, not on references, and that the references merely supply the evidence of lack of novelty, obviousness, loss of right or whatever may be the ground of rejection.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. In re Land · In re Bergstrom“(e) the invention was described in a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent * * *. [Emphasis ours.]”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re Land · In re Klesper“§ 102. Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent A person shall be entitled to a patent unless— (a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or (b) the invention was patented, or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States * * *.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. In re Bergstrom · 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.