Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 572 F.2d 312 - In re Schaumann

In re Schaumann’s Empirical Analysis

572 F.2d 312 · 1978

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
August 2018
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Envirotech Corporation v. Al George, Incorporated and Monosep, Inc. (1984), Structural Rubber Products Company v. Park Rubber Company (1984)

4 federal appellate · 3 district ·

14019781980199020002010decided

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 Petering · Ruschig · In re Kiekhaefer · In re Arkley · In re Ruschig

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. “led inevitably to the conclusion that the reference provides a description of those compounds just as surely as if they were identified in the reference by name.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In response to appellants’ primary argument that the general formula of Hildebrandt’s specification cannot constitute an anticipation of every one of the one hundred and five or more compounds encompassed thereby, the examiner noted that the method disclosed by Hildebrandt for producing |3-(meta-hydroxyphenyl)-isopropylamines would result only in the production of secondary amines, thus limiting to fourteen the number of possible compounds taught by the reference. That number is further reduced to seven, said the examiner, if one considers the preference for lower alkyl secondary amines expressed in claim 1 of the reference.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the disclosure of a chemical genus ... constitute[s] a description of a specific compound”
    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.