In re Angstadt’s Empirical Analysis
537 F.2d 498 · 1976
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Wl Gore Associates Inc v. Garlock Inc (1983), Atlas Powder Company v. Ei Du Pont De Nemours & Company (1984)
2 federal appellate · 9 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. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 112
Relies on Carnegie Steel Company v. Cambria Iron Company · Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde · United States v. Lucchese · Mowry v. Whitney · Ives v. Hamilton
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“What is of maximum concern in any analysis of whether a particular claim is supported by the disclosure in an application is whether that disclosure contains sufficient teaching regarding the subject matter of the claims as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and to use the claimed invention. These two requirements, “how to make” and “how to use” have sometimes been referred to in combination as the “enablement” requirement ... The relevant inquiry may be summed up as being whether the scope of enablement provided to one of ordinary skill in the art by the disclosure is such as to be commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims. 9”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[s]ince appellants have supplied the list of catalysts and have taught how to make and how to use them, we believe that the experimentation required to determine which catalysts will produce hydroperoxides would not be undue and certainly would hot 'require ingenuity beyond that to be expected of one of ordinary skill in the art.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hyatt v. Iancu“The need for guidance to enable the invention, with its claims to a myriad of combinations . . ., to be practiced without undue experimentation is evident.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Colianni
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.