In re Lindner’s Empirical Analysis
457 F.2d 506 · 1972
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently September 2004 · most notably In Re Francis Jamc De Blauwe and Frank Ka Selleslags (1984), CFMT, Inc. v. YieldUP International Corp. (2003)
2 federal appellate · 4 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
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 112
Relies on Application of James R. Tiffin and Earl Erdman · In re Saunders · In re Hyson · In re Cavanagh · In re Takai
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The affidavit and specification do contain allegations that synergistic results are obtained with all the claimed compositions, but ... mere lawyers’ arguments unsupported by factual evidence are insufficient to establish unexpected results. Likewise, mere conclusory statements in the specification and affidavits are entitled to little weight when the Patent Office questions the efficacy of those statements.... [W]e agree with the board that there is insufficient evidence to overcome the case of prima facie obviousness found to exist here.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Here only one mixture of ingredients was tested . . . . This particular mixture was found to produce a good dispersion with refractory 7-21-7 fertilizer solutions. As the board noted, the specification also indicates that the same mixture was successfully used with 7-21-7 fertilizer solutions. The claims, however, are much broader in scope, covering mixtures of numerous compounds, and we have to agree with the Patent Office that there is no “adequate basis for reasonably concluding that the great number and variety of compositions included by the claims would behave in the same manner as the [single] test composition.” [Citation omitted; emphasis added.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Greenfield
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.