Application of James R. Tiffin and Earl Erdman’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently July 2014 · most notably In re Huai-Hung Kao (2011), In re Peterson (2003)
3 federal appellate · 7 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 In re Tiffin · Application of Gerald McLaughlin · In re Law · In re Kennedy
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * it is the view of this court that objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. * * * [Citation of cases omitted.) Here, appellants’ claims * * * are too broad in the sense of 35 USC 103 in that they are inclusive of subject matter which is prima facie obvious and concerning which appellants have not rebutted the Patent Office’s prima facie case.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Collins · In re Collins
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.