In re Weber’s Empirical Analysis
580 F.2d 455 · 1978
Citation profile
2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently October 1998
2 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. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 121 · 35 U.S.C. § 132 · 35 U.S.C. § 134 · 35 U.S.C. § 41
Relies on Ruschig · Thomas Lynn Fields v. Lloyd H. Conover and Robert B. Woodward · In re Hengehold · In re Haas · In re Sichert
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112 (2). The second rejection was pursuant to the first paragraph of § 112, as well as the second paragraph. The first paragraph provides: "The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.”
1 later decision 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.”
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.