Risse Horlein’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The distinction which should be borne in mind is that, with regard to interference estoppel, the losing party is only estopped to obtain claims which read directly on disclosures of subject matter clearly common to both the winning party’s application and that of the losing party; but that, with regard to prior art (including prior invention), the losing party cannot obtain claims to subject matter which is either barred under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (g), or rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 , by the invention defined in the interference counts. [ 378 F.2d at 957 , 54 CCPA at 1506 .]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Ogiue · In re Wilding

2. “* * * the subgeneric claims of the. continuation-in-part applications (1) are completely within the scope of the parent case generic disclosure and (2) read on at least one species disclosed in a working example of the parent application.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Ahlbrecht · Application of Arthur H. Ahlbrecht

3. “Proceeding now to the matter of statutory prior art, we think it is well settled that prior art under 35 USC 103 includes prior invention under 35 USC 102(g). See, e. g., In re Yale, supra.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Bass · In re Bass