In re Bass’s Empirical Analysis
474 F.2d 1276 · 1973
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably Ei Du Pont Nemours Company v. Phillips Petroleum Company, Kimberly-Clark Corporation v. Johnson & Johnson and Personal Products Company (1984)
6 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. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 119 · 35 U.S.C. § 122 · 35 U.S.C. § 135 · 35 U.S.C. § 282
Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · United States v. Adams · Loom Company v. Higgins · Morgan v. Daniels · Seymour v. Osborne
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he term ‘prior art’ as it is used in 35 U.S.C. § 103 should include all inventions which were made in this country before an applicant or patentee made his invention, regardless of when those inventions are made public or patent applications on them are filed, so long as those inventions are found not to have been abandoned, suppressed, or concealed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“My construction of the phrase the invention was made in this country by another, as used in 35 U.S.C. § 102 (g), is based on the judicial interpretation of that phrase taken in context with the facts as presented in Bass/Clemens, and is that the invention of another under § 102(g), to be available as prior art for a section 103 determination, must have been disclosed in an issued U.S. patent. Since Champaigne’s work was prior art based solely upon the disclosure of his U.S. patent, his work comports with my construction of § 102(g), and I therefore can concur with the finding of the Majority Opinion that the work of Champaigne does not obviate the claimed invention of Roeder. ****** I believe that several factual findings would be required before the prior work of another, which is not subsequently disclosed in an issued U.S. patent, is used as prior art under section 103 by virtue of section 102(g). These factual findings would include: (1) Does the weight of the evidence support a finding that prior work of another is an invention, i.e., has it been conceived and reduced to practice; (2) does the weight of the evidence support the conclusion that this invention has not been abandoned, suppressed or concealed; (3) does the weight of the evidence support the conclusion that this invention has been disclosed; (4) does the weight of the evidence support a finding of priority of this invention over the claimed invention. These factual findings would in turn raise other is sues, ”
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.