In re Herschler’s Empirical Analysis
591 F.2d 693 · 1979
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc. (2002), University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co. (2004)
6 federal appellate · 6 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. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 120 · 35 U.S.C. § 141
Relies on In re Wertheim · Ruschig · In re Bergel · In re Lukach · In re Ruscetta
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]ere this application drawn to novel 'steroidal agents,' a different question would be posed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The function of the description requirement is to ensure that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the application relied on, of the specific subject matter later claimed by him; how the specification accomplishes this is not material. [Citation omitted.] It is not necessary that the application describe the claim limitation exactly, [citation omitted], but only so clearly that persons of ordinary skill in the art will recognize from the disclosure that appellants invented processes including those limitations. [Citation omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[C]laims drawn to the [u]se of [k]nown chemical compounds in a manner auxiliary to the invention must have a corresponding written description only so specific as to lead one having ordinary skill in the art to that class of compounds. Occasionally, a functional recitation of those known compounds in the specification may be sufficient as that description. In Fuetterer and here, such is the case.”
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.