In re Haas’s Empirical Analysis
486 F.2d 1053 · 1973
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently August 2016
5 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. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 121 · 35 U.S.C. § 134 · 35 U.S.C. § 141 · 35 U.S.C. § 7 (§ 8 of the Patent Act of 1952)
Relies on In re Hengehold · Archer v. Gordon · In re James · Application of John L. Szajna and Ronald G. Lump · In re Dollinger
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Section 7, appearing in Chapter I of Title 35 relating to establishment of the Patent Office, its officers and functions, provides in general terms an organization or vehicle for review of adverse decisions. Section 134, appearing in Chapter 12 of Title 35 relating to examination of applications, is among the sections establishing the statutory right an applicant has during the examination proceeding. To determine what statutory rights of review an applicant has and thus what kind of “adverse decisions” of examiners are reviewable by the board on appeal by applicants, it is necessary, we think, to turn to § 134. Reading § 7 and § 134 in pari materia, as we must, we feel that the kind of adverse decisions of examiners which are reviewable by the board must be those which relate, at least indirectly, to matters involving the rejection of claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Volk“An applicant dissatisfied with the decision of the Board of Appeals may appeal to the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Voss“not only in this application but prospectively in any subsequent application because of their content.”
1 later decision 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.