Portuguese   Portuguese
English   English

Risdon Iron & Locomotive Works v. Medart (158 U.S. 68, 1895 Apr 22)

Decision Parameters

Decisions That Cite It

    O'Reilly v. Morse [56 U.S. 15, 1853]

    Decisions It Cites

      Cochrane v. Deener [94 U.S. 780, 1877]
      Tilghman v. Proctor [102 U.S. 707, 1880]
      Expanded Metal v. Bradford [214 U.S. 366, 1909]

    Rules & Quotes

    [ABSTRACT, DESCRIPTION] {1} It is equally clear, however, that a valid patent cannot be obtained for a process which involves nothing more than the operation of a piece of mechanism, or, in other words, for the function of a machine. The distinction between the two classes of cases nowhere better appears than in the earliest reported case upon that subject, viz. Wyeth v. Stone, 1 Story, 273, Fed. Cas. No. 18,107, in which the patentee claimed as his invention the cutting of ice of a uniform size by means of an apparatus worked by any other power than human. This was said to be a claim for an art or principle in the abstract, and not for any particular method or machinery by which ice was to be cut, and to be unmaintainable, in point of law, although the patent was held to be good for the machinery described in the specification.

    JSON Specification


    return to top