In re Van Os’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 federal appellate · 1 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]hen the [PTAB]'s action is potentially lawful but insufficiently or inappropriately explained, we have consistently vacated and remanded for further proceedings.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Hodges · DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. Apple Inc.

2. “that a patent challenger show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had motivation to combine the prior art references and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so [and] that the reason, suggestion, or motivation to combine may be found explicitly or implicitly: 1) in the prior art references themselves; 2) in the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art that certain references, or disclosures in those references, are of special interest or importance in the field; or 3) from the nature of the problem to be solved.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Skedco, Inc. v. Strategic Operations, Inc.

3. “I write separately because I believe that remand is not the appropriate remedy in examination appeals in which the [US]PTO has not carried its burden of establishing unpatentability.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. In re Hodges