In re Mancy’s Empirical Analysis
499 F.2d 1289 · 1974
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 1995
3 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. § 100 · 35 U.S.C. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 112
Relies on Larsen · In re Argoudelis · In re Kuehl · In re Seaborg · In re Wadlinger
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We recognize the differences between this case and the situation in Kuehl, where the novel zeolite used as a catalyst in the claimed hydrocarbon cracking processes was itself the subject of allowed claims in the application. Here appellants not only have no allowed claim to the novel strain of Streptomyces used •in their process but would, we presume (without deciding), be unable to obtain such a claim because the strain, while new in the sense that it is not shown by any art of record, is, as we understand it, a “product of nature.” However, it is not required for unobviousness of the method-of-use claims that the new starting material be patentable * * *.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re Bergy · In re Bergy“[wjithout Streptomyces bifitrcus, strain DS 23,-219, knowledge of which is supplied [only] by appellants' application and availability of which is supplied by appellants’ deposit of the microorganism with the Department of Agriculture, one skilled in the art would not find it obvious to produce daunorubicin by aerobically cultivating Streptomyces bifurcus.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The selection of the starting material was, presumably, not obvious but such selection is not a category of patentable invention. 35 U.S.C. § 100 . [Emphasis supplied.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Way
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.