In re Smith’s Empirical Analysis
458 F.2d 1389 · 1972
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently April 2010 · most notably Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar (1991), Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc. (1985)
10 federal appellate · 3 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. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 120
Relies on Risse Horlein · In re Lukach · Thomas Lynn Fields v. Lloyd H. Conover and Robert B. Woodward · In re Fried · 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.196 (b) we make new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 against claims 1 to 5 and 9 to 13. Claims 1 to 5 and 9 to 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over any one of Stoughton et al, Stoughton or Kligman. All of the above publications were made of record by appellant’s counsel in Paper No. 6 of great-grandparent case Serial No. 329,-151 filed December 9, 1963. The above articles were described in detail by appellant’s counsel in said Paper No. 6 (pages 8 to 12) and we will not, therefore, elaborate on the disclosure of the articles. It is sufficient to note that each of the articles teaches the enhanced penetration of various steroids resulting from topical application of DMSO concurrently with the steroid — the heart of appellant’s inventive concept. All of the above articles were published in 1964 or 1965, more than one year prior to the filing date of appellant’s grandparent case Serial No. 753,-231, filed August 16, 1968. Hence the articles are statutory bars against the present claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (b) and 103 unless appellant’s claimed invention was described in great-grandparent case Serial No. 329,151 filed December 9, 1963; see 35 U.S.C. § 120 and 35 U.S.C. § 112 , first paragraph. We have carefully considered the great-grandparent case but the only disclosure relating to steroids (pages 34-35) is limited to glucocorticosteroids whereas all of the prese”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Herschler“[t]he recent cases suggests [sic ] a more stringent requirement for a description of the claimed invention than may have been previously applied in cases wherein the issue was framed in terms of 'support' for claimed subject matter.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[A]ppellant has no basis on which the disclosure in the 1947 application may be treated as a description of 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.