In re Glass’s Empirical Analysis
492 F.2d 1228 · 1974
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Coherent, Inc. (1987), Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. Eastman Kodak Company (1980)
4 federal appellate · 8 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. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 122 · 35 U.S.C. § 132
Relies on Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co. · In re Gay · Application of Joseph D. Fisher · In re Argoudelis · In re Hawkins
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he filing date becomes a date of constructive reduction to practice in determining priority of invention and this should not be the case unless at that time, without waiting for subsequent disclosures, any person skilled in the art could practice the invention from the disclosure of the application. If information to be found only in subsequent publications is needed for such enablement, it cannot be said that the disclosure in the application evidences a complete invention.... [W]e now rule that application sufficiency under § 112, first paragraph, must be judged as of its filing date.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“application sufficiency under Sec. 112, first paragraph, must be judged as of the filing date.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Because the filing date is so important in determining patent rights, it is essential that there be no question that, at the time an application for patent is filed, the invention claimed therein is fully capable of being reduced to practice (i.e. that no technological problems, the resolution of which would require more than ordinary skill and reasonable time, remain in order to obtain an operative, useful embodiment.”
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.