Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 455 F.2d 586 - In re Arkley

In re Arkley’s Empirical Analysis

455 F.2d 586 · 1972

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
August 2023
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 5 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Ssih Equipment Sa v. United States International Trade Commission (1983), Structural Rubber Products Company v. Park Rubber Company (1984)

7 federal appellate · 5 district ·

220197219801990200020102020decided

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 · 35 U.S.C. § 112

Relies on Seymour v. Osborne · In re LeGrice · Ruschig · Swain v. Mallory · In re Lukach

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

  1. “It is to be noted that rejections under 35 USC 103 are proper where the subject matter claimed “is not identically disclosed or described” (emphasis ours) in “the prior art,” indicating that rejections under 35 USC 102 are proper only when the claimed subject matter is identically disclosed or described in “the prior art.” Thus, for the instant rejection under 35 USC 102(e) to have been proper, the Flynn reference must clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed compound or direct those skilled in the art to the compound without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference. [Emphasis in original.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In * * * [resolving doubt on the issue presented in favor of the applicants], this court is not doing the applicants or the public any favor. Rather it is bestowing on the applicants a license to litigate of dubious validity at a time when, it is reliably estimated, 80% of contested patents are being held invalid in other federal courts.”
    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.