In re Cescon’s Empirical Analysis
474 F.2d 1331 · 1973
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently May 2011
3 federal appellate ·
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 In re Sinex · Larsen · Application of Robert E. Moore and Edward J. Janoski · In re Wagner
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“it was not obvious to make the compounds.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re Dillon · In Re Diane M Dillon“. . . the relevant inquiry under the 'how to make' requirement of paragraph one of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is whether the scope of enablement provided to one of ordinary skill in the art by the disclosure is commensurate in scope with the protection sought by the claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Nothing in the prior art suggests any relationship between ortho substitution in the 2-phenyl ring [the structural difference from the prior art] and the prop erties disclosed and illustrated in appellant’s specification.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Dillon
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.