Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 1 (American Inventors Protection Act of 1999) · 35 U.S.C. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 111 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 282
Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. · Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co.
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if the elements comprising the invention are disclosed by an examination of the prior art.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“are disclosed in analogous structures in which the features perform an identical function.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“aggregation produced a new or different result or achieved a synergistic effect.”
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.