In re Driscoll’s Empirical Analysis
562 F.2d 1245 · 1977
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar (1991), Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp. (1984)
13 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 120 · 35 U.S.C. § 253
Relies on Ruschig · In re Thorington · Engineering Development Laboratories v. Radio Corp. of America · In re Johnson
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t should be readily apparent from recent decisions of this court involving the question of compliance with the description requirement of Sec. 112 that each case must be decided on its own facts. Thus, the precedential value of cases in this area is extremely limited.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“If two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in one application, the Commissioner may require the application to be restricted to one of the inventions. If the other invention is made the subject of a divisional application which complies with the requirements of section 120 of this title it shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original application. A patent issuing on an application with respect to which a requirement for restriction under this section has been made, or on an application filed as a result of such a requirement, shall not be used as a reference either in the Patent and Trademark Office or in the courts against a divisional application or against the original application or any patent issued on either of them, if the divisional application is filed before the issuance of the patent on the other application. If a divisional application is directed solely to subject matter described and claimed in the original application as filed, the Commissioner may dispense with signing and execution by the inventor. The validity of a patent shall not be questioned for failure of the Commissioner to require the application to be restricted to one invention.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“This invention provides herbicidal compounds having the formula: [[Image here]] wherein X is a member selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, halogen (e.g., fluorine, chlorine and bromine), ni-tro, trifluoromethyl, cyano, CO OH, [[Image here]] (e.g. alkyl of 1 to 4 carbon atoms), hy-droxy, alkoxy of 1 to 4 carbon atoms, alkyl or 1 to 4 carbon atoms, [[Image here]] SH, SR1; SORx, SO2NH2 and combination thereof, Ri and R2 are selected from the group consisting of alkyl of 1 to 4 carbon atoms, R is selected from the group consisting of hydroxy, alkoxy of 1 to 5 carbon atoms, aryloxy, chloro, amido, alky-lamido of 1 to 4 carbon atoms, dialkylam-ido of 2 to 6 carbon atoms, SH, SR1; and OM in which M is an alkali metal (e.g. lithium, sodium and potassium), alkylam-monium of 1 to 4 carbon atoms or alkano-lammonium of 1 to 4 carbon atoms, n is an integer of 1 to 5, and in which compound at least one X is other than hydrogen; their use as herbicides; and a herbicidal composition comprising at least one of said compounds and a carrier therefor.”
1 later decision 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.