In re Mouttet’s Empirical Analysis
686 F.3d 1322 · 2012
Citation profile
26 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 134
Relies on Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. · In re Gartside · Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A reference that properly teaches away can preclude a determination that the reference renders a claim obvious. Whether or not a reference teaches away from a claimed invention is a question of fact.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.