Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 481 F.2d 910 - In re Smith

In re Smith’s Empirical Analysis

481 F.2d 910 · 1973

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
November 2021
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 8 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar (1991), Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (2010)

7 federal appellate · 8 district ·

180197319801990200020102020decided

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. § 112

Relies on Ruschig · Trevino v. Union Pacific Railroad · In re Marzocchi · In re Lukach · In re Smythe

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

  1. “Satisfaction of the description requirement insures that subject matter presented in the form of a claim subsequent to the filing date of the application was sufficiently disclosed at the time of filing so that the prima facie date of invention can fairly be held to be the filing date of the application.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The specification as originally filed must convey clearly to those skilled in the art the information that the applicant has invented the specific subject matter later claimed. In re Ruschig, supra, 54 CCPA [1551] at 1559, 379 F.2d [990] at 996, 154 USPQ [118] at 123. When the original specification accomplishes that, regardless of how it accomplishes it, the essential goal of the description requirement is realized.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Where the claim is an original claim, the underlying concept of insuring disclosure as of the filing date is satisfied, and the description requirement has likewise been held to be satisfied.”
    3 later decisions 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.