In re Gyurik’s Empirical Analysis
596 F.2d 1012 · 1979
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently December 2014
2 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. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 103
Relies on John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston · In re Sinex · In re Petering · In re Kiekhaefer · Commissioner of Patents v. Deutsche Gold-und-Silber-Scheideanstalt Vormals Roessler
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An element in determining obviousness of a new chemical compound is the motivation of one having ordinary skill in the art to make it. That motivation is not abstract, but practical, and is always related to the properties or uses one skilled in the art would expect the compound to have, if made. In re Stemniski ____ The present obviousness rejection cannot stand without some basis in the expected properties of the claimed compounds. In obviousness rejections based on close similarity in chemical structure, the necessary motivation to make a claimed compound, and thus the prima facie case of obviousness, rises from the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties. * * * No common-properties presumption rises from the mere occurrence of a claimed compound at an intermediate point in a conventional reaction yielding a specifically named prior art compound. That an intermediate/end-product relationship exists between a claimed compound and a prior art compound does not alone create a common-properties presumption. Absent that presumption or other evidence of motivation, it cannot be said that it would have been obvious to stop the process for synthesizing the disclosed end product and isolate the claimed intermediate. 14 [Citations omitted.]”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re Lalu · In re Dillon
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.