In re Schneider’s Empirical Analysis
481 F.2d 1350 · 1973
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently June 2012
3 federal appellate · 2 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. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 120
Relies on In re Smythe · In re Smith · In re Kuehl · In re Lintner · In re de Seversky
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.
“[TJhere has to be a continuous chain of copending applications each of which satisfies the requirements of § 112 with respect to the subject matter presently claimed. See In re deSeversky, 474 F.2d 671 (CCPA 1973). There must be continuing disclosure through the chain of applications, without hiatus, to ultimately secure the benefit of the earliest filing date.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Hogan
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.