In re Jolles’s Empirical Analysis
628 F.2d 1322 · 1980
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently March 2019
5 federal appellate · 1 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. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 112
Relies on In re Chilowsky · In re Bergel · In re Novak · In re Novak · Bergel
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is proper for the examiner to ask for substantiating evidence unless one with ordinary skill in the art would accept the allegations as obviously correct.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“a specification disclosure which contains a teaching of the manner and process of making and using the invention . . . must be taken as in compliance with the enabling requirement of the first paragraph of § 112 unless there is reason to doubt the objective truth of the statements contained therein which must be relied on for enabling support.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“utility as a drug, medicant, and the like in human therapy”
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.