In Re Fridolph

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[I]n considering more than one reference, the question always is: does such art suggest doing the thing the [inventor] did.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

28 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Alza Corporation v. Mylan Laboratories
  Federal Circuit· 2006-09-06· cited 115×
• Application of Philip A. Shaffer, Jr
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1956-01-20· cited 46×
• Application of Demarche
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1955-02-21· cited 9×
• In re Pennington
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1957-02-21· cited 8×
• In re Dalzell
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1946-01-07· cited 6×
• In re Phipps
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1946-03-04· cited 6×
• In re Haney
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1946-12-09· cited 6×
• Application of Benjamin Gruskin, Deceased, by Irma Kelly Gruskin
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1956-06-20· cited 5×
• Application of Flick
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1954-03-23· cited 4×
• In Re Brenn
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1950-05-09· cited 3×
• Application of Carter
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1954-04-09· cited 3×
• Application of Bernard Harmon
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1955-05-25· cited 3×
• Application of Fred N. Hill
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1960-12-22· cited 3×
• In re Harmon
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1955-05-25· cited 3×
• Application of Jurgeleit
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1952-01-29· cited 2×
• Matter of the Application of Nathan La Verne and Albert A. Laverne
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1956-01-20· cited 2×
• Application of Neal A. Pennington
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1957-02-21· cited 2×
• In re Udy
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1949-03-01· cited 2×
• In re LaVerne
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1956-01-20· cited 2×
• In re Edwards
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1956-04-18· cited 2×