Martin v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
454 F.2d 746 · 1972
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 119 · 35 U.S.C. § 120
Relies on Swain v. Mallory · In re Lukach · Application of Eric D. Brown · Thomas Lynn Fields v. Lloyd H. Conover and Robert B. Woodward · In re DiLeone
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To satisfy § 112, the specification disclosure must be sufficiently complete to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make the invention without undue experimentation, although the need for a minimum amount of experimentation is not fatal. . . . Enablement is the criterion, and every detail need not be set forth in the written specification if the skill in the art is such that the disclosure enables one to make the invention. [Citations omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Gaubert“the disclosure requirements of the first paragraph of Sec. 112 [must be] met with respect to the subject matter now claimed”
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.