Henry A. Rutter v. Barney v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
541 F.2d 878 · 1976
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Lincoln Engineering Co of Illinois v. Stewart-Warner Corporation · Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. · Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc. · Dann v. Johnston
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An appellate court is bound by the trial court’s findings of fact relating to obviousness unless they are rejected under the clearly erroneous rule. . . . We are not bound by its conclusion of law that the Rutter device was not obvious to one skilled in the art. (emphasis added)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““[T]he mere existence of differences between the prior art and invention does not establish the invention’s nonobviousness. The gap between the prior art and the respondent’s system is simply not so great as to render the system nonobvious to one reasonably skilled in the art.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.