Portuguese   Portuguese
English   English

O'Reilly v. Morse (56 U.S. 62, 1853)


Decision Parameters

Decisions It Cites

    Neilson v. Harford [:UK:151 ER 1266, 1841]
    Le Roy v. Tatham [55 U.S. 14, 1852]

Decisions That Cite It

    Burr v. Duryee [68 U.S. 531, 1863]
    Tilghman v. Proctor [102 U.S. 707, 1880]
    Telephone Cases [126 U.S. 1, 1888]
    Risdon Locomotive Works v. Medart [158 U.S. 68, 1895]
    Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake [170 U.S. 537, 1898]
    Expanded Metal v. Bradford [214 U.S. 366, 1909]
    Gottschalk v. Benson [409 U.S. 63, 1972]
    Parker v. Flook [437 U.S. 584, 1978]
    Diamond v. Chakrabarty [447 U.S. 303, 1980]
    Diamond v. Diehr [450 U.S. 175, 1981]
    In re Alappat [33 F.3d 1526, 1994]
    Bilski v. Kappos [561 U.S. 593, 2010]

Rules & Quotes

[DESCRIPTION] {1} Whoever discovers that a certain useful result will be produced in any art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter by the use of certain means is entitled to a patent for it, provided he specifies the means he uses in a manner so full and exact that anyone skilled in the science to which it appertains can, by using the means he specifies, without any addition to or subtraction from them, produce precisely the result he describes. And if this cannot be done by the means he describes, the patent is void. And if it can be done, then the patent confers on him the exclusive right to use the means he specifies to produce the result or effect he describes, and nothing more.

JSON Specification

Commentary

return to top