In re HOWARTH’s Empirical Analysis
654 F.2d 103 · 1981
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently April 2011
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. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 119
Relies on Loom Company v. Higgins · In re Chilowsky · In re Bo Thuresson Af Ekenstam · In re Chilowsky · In re Eynde
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An inventor need not, however, explain every detail since he is speaking to those skilled in the art.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Section 102 has as one objective that only the first inventor obtain a patent.... Foreign 'patents' and foreign 'printed publications' preclude the grant of a patent whether or not the information is commonly known. Under [section] 102 a conclusive presumption of knowledge of such prior art is, in effect, a statutorily required fiction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“When an applicant seeks to add necessary information to a specification by incorporating a source for the information by reference, public accessibility of that source alone may be the controlling factor.”
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.