In re Abele’s Empirical Analysis
684 F.2d 902 · 1982
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably In re Bilski (2008), CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc. (2011)
7 federal appellate · 5 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. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 112
Relies on Diamond v. Diehr · Gottschalk v. Benson · Parker v. Flook · Meers v. Sundstrand Corp. · Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of America
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[e]ach invention must be evaluated as claimed: yet semantogenic considerations preclude a determination based solely on words appearing in the claims. In the final analysis under § 101, the claimed invention, as a whole, must be evaluated for what it is. Hence, the analysis requires careful interpretation of each claim in light of its supporting disclosure.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re Grams · In re Trovato“an application of a law or nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“applied in any manner to physical elements or process steps,”
3 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.