Hunt v. Treppschuh’s Empirical Analysis
523 F.2d 1386 · 1975
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently January 2017
2 federal appellate · 2 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. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 141
Relies on Risse Horlein · In re Smith · Smith v. Wehn · Carl F. Prutton v. Everett W. Fuller and Ellwood M. Johnson · Charles B. Swain and Albert G. Schuessler v. Bob C. Crittendon
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Another distinction is that Hunt’s parent application is relied upon as a prior constructive reduction to practice; whereas in Smith v. Horne, 450 F.2d 1401 , 59 C.C.P.A. 712 (1971) the disclosure was relied upon for a right to make the count. In the latter situation the requirements of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 must be satisfied for the full scope of the count. In the former, however, the § 112, first paragraph requirements need only be met for an embodiment within the count. [Emphasis in the original.]”
3 later decisions 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.