Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 545 F.2d 152 - In re Chatfield

In re Chatfield’s Empirical Analysis

545 F.2d 152 · 1976

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
May 2024
most recently cited

2 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2024 · most notably Diamond v. Diehr (1981), Parker v. Flook (1978)

2 federal appellate ·

210197619801990200020102020decided

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. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 112

Relies on Cohens v. Virginia · Gottschalk v. Benson · O'Reilly v. Morse · Dann v. Johnston · Erastus Corning and John Winslow v. Peter a Burden

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

  1. “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “Our reference in Christensen to the mathematical equation as being “at the point of novelty” does not equate to a holding that a claim may be dissected, the claim components searched in the prior art and, if the only component found novel is outside the statutory classes of invention, the claim may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 . That procedure is neither correct nor within the intent of Congress, for the reasons we stated in [In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395 , 57 CCPA 737 , 163 USPQ 611 (1969)].”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[a] procedure for solving a given type of mathematical problem . . . .”
    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.