Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 539 F.2d 1300 - In re Kronig

In re Kronig’s Empirical Analysis

539 F.2d 1300 · 1976

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
September 2013
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently September 2013 · most notably In re Kahn (2006), In Re John R Beattie

13 federal appellate · 1 district ·

7019761980199020002010decided

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 Wiechert · In re Moore · In re Eynde · In re Moore · In re Wafmouth

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

  1. “Appellants further allege that the effect of water addition which they disclose (to lengthen the service life of the catalyst) is different from the effect of water addition disclosed in Yasui et al. Nevertheless, Yasui et al. provide ample motivation to add water in order to increase product yields, and we do not view the rejection as deficient merely because the appellants allege a different advantage resulting from the addition of water.... [I]t is sufficient here that Yasui et al. clearly suggests doing what appellants have done, viz., adding water.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “the ultimate criterion of whether a rejection is considered `new' in a decision by the board is whether appellants have had fair opportunity to react to the thrust of the rejection”
    2 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.