In re Freeman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district ·

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

1. “In order for a showing of “unexpected results” to be probative evidence of non-obviousness, it falls upon the applicant to at least establish: (1) that there actually is a difference between the results obtained through the claimed invention and those of the prior art, In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077 , 59 CCPA 862 (1972); and (2) that the difference actually obtained would not have been expected by one skilled in the art at the time of invention, Id.; In re D’Ancicco, 439 F.2d 1244 , 58 CCPA 1057 (1971).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Juillard

2. “is strong enough to establish a prima facie case, i.e., one which would prevail in the absence of rebuttal evidence, we must go on to examine the evidence of non-obviousness before the legal conclusion called for by section 103 can be reached.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Dillon

3. “We have recently pointed out that the rule derived from Mod and de Montmol-lin by the Patent Office is not supported by those cases.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Dillon