Portuguese   Portuguese
English   English

Expanded Metal v. Bradford (214 U.S. 366, 1909 Jun 01)

Decision Parameters

Decisions It Cites

    Corning v. Burden [56 U.S. 252, 1853]
    Cochrane v. Deener [94 U.S. 780, 1877]
    Tilghman v. Proctor [102 U.S. 707, 1880]
    Risdon Iron & Locomotive v. Medart [158 U.S. 68, 1895]
    Leeds & Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking Machine [213 U.S. 301, 1909]

Decisions That Cite It

    Gottschalk v. Benson [409 U.S. 63, 1972]

Rules & Quotes

[OBVIOUS] {1} There is nothing in the prior art that suggests the combined operation of the Golding patent in suit. It is perfectly well settled that a new combination of elements, old in themselves, but which produce a new and useful result, entitles the inventor to the protection of a patent. To our minds, Golding's method shows that degree of ingenuity and usefulness which raises it above an improvement obvious to a mechanic skilled in the art, and entitles it to the merit of invention. Others working in the same field had not developed it, and the prior art does not suggest the combination of operations which is the merit of Golding's invention.

[PROCESS] {2} We therefore reach the conclusion that an invention or discovery of a process or method involving mechanical operations, and producing a new and useful result, may be within the protection of the Federal statute, and entitle the inventor to a patent for his discovery. We are of opinion that Golding's method was a substantial improvement of this character, independently of particular mechanisms for performing it, and the patent in suit is valid as exhibiting a process of a new and useful kind.

JSON Specification


return to top