United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit . ntain these two elements?They comprise the whole Wilfiey table. In some casesa claim will describe a device or part which may betransplanted from one environment to another sothat the machine or apparatus into which it is trans-planted can be said with truth to embody the elementsof the claim. But here the elements of the claimconstitute the whole table. To ask whether or no theDeister table contains the elements of Wilfiey claim 2is to ask whether the Deister table contains the Wilfieytable, which is absurd. But counsel will say it mayemb
United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit . ntain these two elements?They comprise the whole Wilfiey table. In some casesa claim will describe a device or part which may betransplanted from one environment to another sothat the machine or apparatus into which it is trans-planted can be said with truth to embody the elementsof the claim. But here the elements of the claimconstitute the whole table. To ask whether or no theDeister table contains the elements of Wilfiey claim 2is to ask whether the Deister table contains the Wilfieytable, which is absurd. But counsel will say it mayembody some principle or function which may be pre-sent in the operation of the Deister table. The Wilfieytable, however, is a machine, and machine patents aregranted for structures, not principles. In Corning v. Burden, 15 Howard, 252, the courtsaid, on page 268: It is well settled that a man can not havea patent for the function or abstract effect of (No Model.) No. 590,675 A. R. WILFLEY. ORE CONCENTRATOR. 2 Sheets—Sheet 2 4 Patented Sept. 28, lO -S ff>. n ^i m:
Size: 1094px × 2285px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookauthorunitedst, bookcentury1900, bookdecade1910, bookyear1913
