Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 642 F.2d 413 - In re Keller

In re Keller’s Empirical Analysis

642 F.2d 413 · 1981

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
October 2023
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 9 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc. (1985), In re Fine (1988)

13 federal appellate · 9 district ·

21019811990200020102020decided

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 · 35 U.S.C. § 251

Relies on In re Wood · In re Rosselet · In re Antle · In re Moore · In re Fielder

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

  1. “what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “the applicant has, in connection with the prosecution of corresponding foreign patent applications, been made aware of prior art relevant to patentability not previously considered by the Patent Office, which prior art might cause the Examiner to deem the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]o justify combining reference teachings in support of a rejection it is not necessary that a device shown in one reference can be physically inserted into the device shown in the other.”
    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.