Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 492 F.2d 859 - In re Bowen

In re Bowen’s Empirical Analysis

492 F.2d 859 · 1974

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
June 2005
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently June 2005

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

1101974198019902000decided

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 · 35 U.S.C. § 120 · 35 U.S.C. § 132

Relies on Application of Joseph D. Fisher · In re Marzocchi · In re Lukach · In re Smythe · In re Moore

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

  1. “a specification disclosure which contains a teaching of the manner and process of making and using the invention . . . must be taken as in compliance with the enabling requirement of the first paragraph of § 112 unless there is reason to doubt the objective truth of the statements contained therein which must be relied on for enabling support.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In cases involving unpredictable factors, such as most chemical reactions and physiological activity, the scope of enablement obviously varies inversely with the degree of unpredictability of the factors involved.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “claims literally comprehend numerous polymers in addition to the one specifically described in appellant's specification”
    2 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.