In re Berkman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. “[A]n alleged continuation-in-part application should be permitted to claim the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application if the alleged continuation-in-part application complies with the following formal requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120 ; 1. The first application and the alleged continuing application were filed “by the same inventor”; 2. The alleged continuing application was “filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application or an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application”; and 3.The alleged continuing application “contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kangaroos U.S.A., Inc. v. Caldor, Inc.

2. “An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112 of this title in an application previously filed in the United States ... by the same inventor shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application, if filed before the patenting or abandonment of a termination of proceedings on the first application or on an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application and if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kangaroos U.S.A., Inc. v. Caldor, Inc.

3. “The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kangaroos U.S.A., Inc. v. Caldor, Inc.