In re Nomiya’s Empirical Analysis
509 F.2d 566 · 1975
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently December 2008 · most notably Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc. (1988), PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. Viacell, Inc. (2007)
6 federal appellate · 4 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. § 103
Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co. · In re Sponnoble · In re Sporck · In re Conover
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he basic proposition that a statement by an applicant, whether in the application or other papers submitted during prosecution, that certain matter is “prior art” to him, is an admission that the matter is prior art for all purposes, whether or not a basis in § 102 can be found for its use as prior art. (Emphasis in original)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“By filing an application containing Figs. 1 and 2, labeled prior art, ipsissimis verbis, and statements explanatory thereof appellants have conceded what is to be considered as prior art in determining obviousness of their improvement.”
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.