In re Rasmussen’s Empirical Analysis
650 F.2d 1212 · 1981
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp. (1984), Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (2010)
16 federal appellate · 9 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. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 132 · 35 U.S.C. § 251
Relies on In re Wertheim · In re Hogan · In re Smythe · In re Barker · In re Bowen
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]hat a claim may be broader than the specific embodiment disclosed in a specification is in itself of no moment.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“one skilled in the art who read Rasmussen's specification would understand that it is unimportant how the layers are adhered, so long as they are adhered.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“a rejection of an amended claim under § 132 is equivalent to a rejection under § 112, first paragraph.”
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.