Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 512 F.2d 676 - In re Armbruster

In re Armbruster’s Empirical Analysis

512 F.2d 676 · 1975

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
June 2005
most recently cited

2 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently June 2005

2 federal appellate ·

1301975198019902000decided

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. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 144 · 35 U.S.C. § 251

Relies on In re Marzocchi · In re Kirk · Application of Robert E. Moore and Edward J. Janoski · Weiss v. Roschke · In re Bowen

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

  1. “In any event, it is incumbent upon the Patent Office, whenever a rejection on this basis is made [35 USC 112, paragraph 1, enablement], to explain why it doubts the truth or accuracy of any statement in a supporting disclosure and to back up assertions of its own with acceptable evidence or reasoning which is inconsistent with the contested statement.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “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.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “A specification may contain a disclosure that is sufficient to enable one skilled in the art to make and use the invention and yet fail to comply with the description of the invention requirement.”
    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.