In re Ehrreich’s Empirical Analysis
590 F.2d 902 · 1979
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently January 2011
3 federal appellate · 4 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. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 112
Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · In re Prater · In re Rinehart · In re Borkowski · In re Prater
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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. 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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We must not here consider a reference in a vacuum, but against the background of the other references of record which may disprove theories and speculations in the reference, or reveal previously undiscovered or unappreciated problems. The question in a § 103 case is what the references would collectively suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We think that a finding of obviousness should not be based on an implied admission erroneously creating imaginary prior art. That is not the intent of § 103.”
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.