In re Sung Nam Cho’s Empirical Analysis
813 F.2d 378 · 1987
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 144 · 35 U.S.C. § 171 · 35 U.S.C. § 172 · 35 U.S.C. § 173
Relies on Gorham Company v. White · Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp. · Hygienic Specialties Co. v. H. G. Salzman, Inc. · In re Nalbandian · In re Rosen
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To support [such] a rejection ..., the teachings of references must be such as to have suggested the overall appearance of the claimed design.... Thus, if the combined teachings suggest only components of the claimed design but not its overall appearance, a rejection under section 103 is inappropriate.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“so related that the appearance of certain ornamental features in one ... would have suggested application of those features to another.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a designer of ordinary capability who designs articles of the type presented,”
2 later decisions 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.