In re Phillips’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the board’s opinion . . . lacks the specifies of a detailed factual analysis of the subject matter as a whole of appellants’ invention (see this court’s opinion in In re Johnson, 589 F.2d 1070 , 200 USPQ 199 (CCPA 1978), and In re Gelno-vatch, 595 F.2d 32 , [ 201 USPQ 136 ] (CCPA 1979)), which is required to show wherein this court’s opinions in In re Chatfield, [ 545 F.2d 152 , 191 USPQ 730 (CCPA 1976)], In re Noll, [ 545 F.2d 141 , 191 USPQ 721 (CCPA 1976)], In re Deutsch, 553 F.2d 689 , 193 USPQ 645 (CCPA 1977), In re Toma, 575 F.2d 872 , 197 USPQ 852 (CCPA 1978), and In re Freeman, 573 F.2d 1237 , 197 USPQ 464 (CCPA 1978), do not apply to the instant claims and, particularly, wherein the differences between the instant claims and those involved in Benson are insufficient to bring those claims within the Supreme Court’s disclaimer in Benson (repeated in Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219 , 96 S.Ct. 1393 , 47 L.Ed.2d 692 , 189 USPQ 257 (1976)) that it was not holding that all computer program inventions are unpat-entable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Phillips