In re Pearson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate ·

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

1. “[T]his court has sanctioned the practice of nominally basing rejections on § 103 when, in fact, the actual ground of rejection is that the claims are anticipated by the prior art. See In re Dailey, 479 F.2d 1398 , 178 U.S.P.Q. 293 (C.C.P.A. 1973). The justification for this sanction is that a lack of novelty in the claimed subject matter, e.g., as evidenced by a complete disclosure of the invention in the prior art, is the “ultimate or epitome of obviousness.” In re Kalm, 54 C.C.P.A. 1466 , 1470, 378 F.2d 959 , 962, 154 U.S.P.Q. 10 , 12 (1967).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Fracalossi

2. “We do not mean to imply that terms which recite the intended use or a property of a composition can never be used to distinguish a new from an old composition. However, assuming their compliance with the definiteness requirement of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 , such terms must define, indirectly at least, some characteristics not found in the old composition. .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Tuominen

3. “The record establishes that appellant was fully aware of the ground of rejection being put forth regardless of its statutory basis. Furthermore, the board, in affirming the rejection under § 103, did not in effect make a new rejection under § 102 as occurred in In re Echerd, 471 F.2d 632 , 176 U.S.P.Q. 321 (C.C.P.A.1973).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Fracalossi