In re Wiseman’s Empirical Analysis
596 F.2d 1019 · 1979
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably In re Oelrich (1981), In re Kubin (2009)
7 federal appellate · 3 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
Relies on Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co. · In re Sponnoble · In re Burckel · In re Sponnoble · In re Fong
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“They are, in effect, arguing that a structure suggested by the prior art, and hence, potentially in the possession of the public, is patentable to them because it also possesses an inherent but hitherto unknown function which they claim to have discovered. This is not the law. A patent on such a structure would remove from the public that which is in the public domain by virtue of its inclusion in, or obviousness from, the prior art. (citation omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“n contrast, in the present case we find only the reiterated statement of counsel that appellants discovered the source of the problem. There is, however; nothing of record to substantiate the assertion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“If the claimed subject matter would have been obvious from the references, it is immaterial that the references do not state the problem or advantages ascribed thereto by appellant.”
2 later decisions 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.