In re Conley’s Empirical Analysis
490 F.2d 972 · 1974
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently August 2007
2 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. § 112
Relies on In re Prater · In re Borkowski · In re Prater · Application of Robert E. Moore and Edward J. Janoski · Application of Calvin M. Hammack
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“has been relied upon in cases where some material submitted by applicant, other than his specification, shows that a claim does not correspond in scope with what he regards as his invention.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“distinctly claim[ ] the subject matter which [they] regard[ed] as [their] invention.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he definiteness of the language employed must be analyzed--not in a vacuum, but always in light of the teachings of the prior art and of the particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art.”
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.