In re Warner’s Empirical Analysis
379 F.2d 1011 · 1967
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably In re Piasecki (1984), In re GPAC Inc. (1995)
7 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 103
Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · United States v. Adams · Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ray-O-Vac Co. · United States v. Sealy, Inc. · Acro Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re Bass · In re Bass“A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior art. In making this evaluation, all facts must be considered. The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not, because it may doubt that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re Van Os · In re Rice“[W]here the invention sought to be patented resides in a combination of old elements, the proper inquiry is whether bringing them together was obvious and not, whether one of ordinary skill, having the invention before him, would find it obvious through hindsight to reconstruct the invention from elements of the prior art.”
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.