In re Winkhaus’s Empirical Analysis
527 F.2d 637 · 1975
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently January 2002
1 federal appellate · 3 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. § 100 · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 132
Relies on Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · In re Prater · In re Prater · In re Smythe · In re Cook
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although it may be apparent, as appellants argue, that the vapors of the reaction mixture at the end of a given heating zone could be utilized for heating the mixture flowing through this zone, that does not mean that such a step is described as part of their invention. That a person skilled in the art might realize from reading the disclosure that such a step is possible is not a sufficient indication to that person that that step is part of appellants’ invention. Such an indication is the least that is required for a description of the invention under the first paragraph of § 112.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Claims added by amendment and drawn to an invention not so described in the specification are drawn to 'new matter' and prohibited by § 132.”
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.