In Re Scott E Johnston’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district ·

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

1. “An explicit teaching that identifies and selects elements from different sources and states that they should be combined in the same way as in the invention at issue, is rarely found in the prior art. As precedent illustrates, many factors are relevant to the motivation-to-combine aspect of the obviousness inquiry, such as the field of the specific invention, the subject matter of the references, the extent to which they are in the same or related fields of technology, the nature of the advance made by the applicant, and the maturity and congestion of the field. Objective indicia are also relevant, see Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 , 86 S.Ct. 684 , 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966), for the commercial response to an invention is a useful control upon hindsight evaluation of obviousness.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 443 F. Supp. 2d 1284 - Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Clearcube Technology, Inc.