In re Rosen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 3 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “a reference to something in existence, the design characteristics of which are basically the same as the claimed design, in order to support a holding of obviousness”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Walter E. Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Company, Inc. · L.A. Gear, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Thom McAn Shoe Company and Melville Corporation and Pagoda Trading Company, Inc.

2. “are so related that the appearance of certain ornamental features in one would suggest the application of those features to the other.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. John Thomas Batts, Inc. v. S.O. Textiles Co., Inc. · Walter E. Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Company, Inc.

3. “[i]n considering patentability of a proposed design the appearance of the design must be viewed as a whole, as shown by the drawing, or drawings, and compared with something in existence — not with something that might be brought into existence by selecting individual features from prior art and combining them, particularly where combining them would require modification of every individual feature, * * *.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Harvey · 681 F. Supp. 1190 - Benchcraft, Inc. v. Broyhill Furniture Industries, Inc.