In re Samour’s Empirical Analysis
571 F.2d 559 · 1978
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently March 2010 · most notably ACS Hospital Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore Hospital (1984), Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Ben Venue Laboratories Inc (2001)
9 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
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
Relies on In re Sinex · In re LeGrice · Swain v. Mallory · In re Prater · Application of Eric D. Brown
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In essence, appellant is contending that a double standard should not be applied in determining the adequacy of a disclosure to anticipate under § 102, on the one hand, and to support the patentability of a claim under § 112 on the other. He feels that a disclosure adequate for the one purpose is necessarily adequate for the other but, unhappily for him, this is not so. As we shall develop, a disclosure lacking a teaching of how to use a fully disclosed compound for a specific, substantial utility or of how to use for such purpose a compound produced by a fully disclosed process is, under the present state of the law, entirely adequate to anticipate a claim to either the product or the process and, at the same time, entirely inadequate to support the allowance of such a claim.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Additional references cited in a rejection under 35 USC 102(b) are not relied on for a suggestion or incentive to combine teachings to meet claim limitations (as in a rejection under 35 USC 103), but, rather, to show that the claimed subject matter, every material element of which is disclosed in the primary reference, was in possession of the public. [Emphasis added.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“solely as evidence that, more than one year prior to appellant's filing date, a method of preparing the claimed subject matter . . . would have been known by, or would have been obvious to, one of ordinary skill in the art.”
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.