In re Colianni’s Empirical Analysis
561 F.2d 220 · 1977
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 2007
1 federal appellate ·
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. § 112
Relies on In re Gay · In re Borkowski · Application of Joseph D. Fisher · In re Marzocchi · Thomas Lynn Fields v. Lloyd H. Conover and Robert B. Woodward
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the quantity of experimentation necessary; (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented; (3) the presence or absence of working examples; (4) the nature of the invention; (5) the state of the prior art; (6) the relative skill of those in the art; (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art; and (8) the breadth of the claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“guidance in selecting the operating parameters that would yield the claimed result,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.