Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 399 F.2d 275 - Application of Alfred Aufhauser

Application of Alfred Aufhauser’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
January 1986
most recently cited

1 district ·

Relationships

Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co. · United States v. Adams · Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ray-O-Vac Co. · 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Where the invention for which a patent is sought solves a problem which persisted in the art, we must look to the problem as well as its solution if we are to properly appraise what was done and to evaluate it against what would be obvious to one having the ordinary skills of the art.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “as in United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 , 86 S.Ct. 708, 15 L.Ed.2d 572 (1966), what appellant had done was to observe an existing problem in the art which had not been solved by the prior art and then combine individually old concepts to solve that problem”
    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.