In re Cormany’s Empirical Analysis
476 F.2d 998 · 1973
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently January 2010
4 federal appellate · 1 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. § 112
Relies on In re Prater · In re Borkowski · Risse Horlein · In re Swinehart · In re Prater
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[C]laim 12 and the claims dependant thereon include within their scope the use in the composition of an amount of a nitroalkane as small as 0.5 weight percent. Appellants’ affidavits make clear that this is not an “amount * * large enough to stabilize” under the test conditions prescribed in these claims and that they do not regard it as within their invention. These claims, therefore, do not particularly point out and distinctly claim what appellants regard as their invention and do not comply with § 112, second paragraph.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Mayhew“particularly point[ ] out and distinctly claim[ ]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Alex Zletz
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.