Wagoner v. Barger’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 2003
1 federal appellate ·
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. § 112
Relies on Brand v. Thomas · Binstead v. Littmann · In re Lukach · Crome v. Morrogh · In re Arkley
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The question in cases in which the parent application does not contain language contained in the claims of the later application is whether the language which is contained in the parent application is the legal equivalent of the claim language, in the sense that the 'necessary and only reasonable construction to be given the disclosure [in the parent application] by one skilled in the art,' Binstead v. Littmann, [44 C.C.P.A. 839, 242 F.2d 766 , 113 USPQ 279 (CCPA 1957) ], is the same as the construction which such person would give the claims of the later application.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is elementary patent law that a patent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application....”
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.