Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 568 F.2d 1349 - In re Edwards

In re Edwards’s Empirical Analysis

568 F.2d 1349 · 1978

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
October 2004
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently October 2004 · most notably Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc. (2002), University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co. (2004)

5 federal appellate · 2 district ·

1101978198019902000decided

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. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 120

Relies on In re Wertheim · Ruschig · In re Lukach · In re Smith · In re Smith

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

  1. “The dispositive issue is whether appellants' parent application, serial No. 682,560, filed November 13, 1967, complies with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, vis-à-vis the subject matter of the appealed claim; if it does, then the claim is entitled to the filing date of the parent application under 35 U.S.C. § 120.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.
  2. “to ensure that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the application relied on, of the specific subject matter later claimed by him.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. Hyatt v. Boone
  3. “taken as a whole, reasonably leads persons skilled in the art to the [recited reactions] and, concomitantly, to the claimed compound.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co.

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.