Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 95 F.2d 264 - In re McKee

In re McKee’s Empirical Analysis

95 F.2d 264 · 1938

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
July 1992
most recently cited

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently July 1992

401938194019501960197019801990decided

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

Relies on In re Butler · In re Grupe · In re White

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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““If it cannot be otherwise defined, and it is new and inventive, a product may be claimed by the process of producing it. In re Grupe, 48 F.2d 936 , 18 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1262. * * * * * “It is our opinion that claim 4 is not subject to the objection that the product is not described other' than by the process of producing it, for we do not think there is any other way of describing it.””
    1 later decision 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.