Rowe v. Holtz’s Empirical Analysis
55 F.2d 468 · 1932
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1999
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
Relies on Deering v. Winona Harvester Works · 11 App. D.C. 264 - Mergenthaler v. Scudder · In re Wietzel · Gleason v. Dosch · In re Oishel
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * The conception of the invention consists in the complete performance of the mental part of the inventive act. All that remains to be accomplished, in order to perfect the act or instrument, belongs to the department of construction, not invention. It is therefore the formation, in the mind of the inventor, of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention, as it is thereafter to be applied in practice, * * *.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The party claiming conception of an invention must show that it was complete and operative and such as would enable a person skilled in the art to reduce the conception to practice without any further research or exercise of the inventive skill. * * * ” (Italics ours.)”
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.