Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 514 F.2d 1389 - In re Albrecht

In re Albrecht’s Empirical Analysis

514 F.2d 1389 · 1975

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
June 2014
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently June 2014

1 federal appellate ·

6019751980199020002010decided

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

Relies on In re Sinex · In re Petering · Application of Henze · In re Kiekhaefer · Commissioner of Patents v. Deutsche Gold-und-Silber-Scheideanstalt Vormals Roessler

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

  1. “We are of the opinion that a novel chemical compound can be nonobvious to one having ordinary skill in the art notwithstanding that it may possess a known property in common with a known structurally similar compound.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A newly discovered activity of a claimed novel compound which bears no material relationship to the activity disclosed for the prior art analogs is further evidence, not to be ignored, of the nonobviousness of the claimed invention.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “This court has several times recently expressed its position on the role of the properties of chemical compounds in assessing their obviousness under § 103. See In re Taborsky, 502 F.2d 775 , 183 USPQ 50 (CCPA 1974); In re Blondel, 499 F.2d 1311 , 182 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1974); see further In re Murch, 464 F.2d 1051 [ 59 CCPA 1277 ], 175 USPQ 89 (CCPA 1972); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013 [ 59 CCPA 1004 ], 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972).”
    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.