WAXHAM
v.
SMITH ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court affirmed the validity and infringement of the first claim of the Smith Patent for an improved egg incubation apparatus and method, holding that a patentable method is not invalid merely because it uses natural laws like heat flow, as long as the means of applying those laws through a particular arrangement of materials and machinery had not been anticipated by prior art. The Court further held that a defendant cannot avoid infringement of a method patent by employing the patented method in a machine of structurally different design.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Stone delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this companion case to No. 102, Smith v. Snow, decided this day, ante, p. 1, certiorari was granted to review a decree of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 70 F. (2d) 457, which affirmed the decree of the district court and held valid and infringed the first claim of the Smith Patent, No. 1,262,860, of April 16, 1918, for an improved apparatus and method for the incubation of eggs.
The issues here, as in the Snow case, are the scope of, Claim 1 and its infringement as rightly construed. For reasons stated at length in the opinion in the Snow case, our decision as to the scope of the claim is the same as in that case. Petitioner argues that the claim, if thus broadly construed, is invalid, as an attempt to patent the function performed by the petitioner’s incubator. See Risdon Iron & Locomotive Works v. Medart, 158 U. S. 68, 77. It is said also that the function of the machine involves merely the application of the natural law that heat units flow from warm to cooler objects placed in proximity. But the function which a machine performs, here the hatching of eggs, is to be distinguished from the means by which that performance is secured. It is true that Smith made use of the difference in temperature of eggs in different stages of incubation, and the flow of heat units from one to the other, in achieving the desired result. He did this by arrangement of the eggs in staged incubation and applying to them a current of heated air under the conditions specified in Claim 1. By the use of materials in a particular manner he secured the performance of the function by a means which had never occurred in nature, and had not been anticipated by the prior art; this is a patentable method or process. Corning v. Burden, 15 How. 252, 267, 268; Risdon Iron & Locomotive Works v. Medart, supra, 77; Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 780, 788. A method, which may be patented irrespective of the particular form of the mechanism which may be availed of for carrying it into operation, is not to be rejected as “ functional,” merely because the specifications show a machine capable of using it. Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford, 214 U. S. 366, 382-386; Cochrane v. Deener, supra, 787, 788; cf. Holland Furniture Co. v. Perkins Glue Co., 277 U. S. 245, 255, 256.
Petitioner’s incubator differs only in unimportant mechanical details from the infringing machine in the Snow case. In it the eggs are set in staged incubation, at different levels, but in no particular order. They are subjected to circulation of heated air, set in motion by fans, which carries heat units from the warmer to the cooler eggs and maintains the air throughout the chamber at substantially uniform temperature. There is a fresh air intake behind the fans and openings in the ceiling for the exit of foul air. There is no central corridor, the tiers of egg trays being placed in or near the center of the chamber. There are no curtains or similar means of guiding the air currents set in motion by the fans. Two fans are placed on the side wall at the back of the chamber. They turn continuously, and are so constructed and operated as to propel currents of air, which proceed along the sides and the ceiling and floor of the chamber to the front wall, where they are deflected in the direction of the fans and there “ drawn ” toward them through the central part of the chamber. Less than 1% of the air passes out through the foul air exits in the course of making the described circuits, so that there is circulation and re-circulation of the air within the chamber. The evidence supports the finding of the special master and of the two courts below that the currents of air set in motion by the fans flow continuously along defined paths.
The petitioner’s machine thus employs every essential of the patented method as it is defined by Claim 1. Petitioner does not avoid infringement of respondent’s method patent merely by employing it in a machine of different structure than respondent’s, whether more or less efficiently. Winans v. Denmead, 15 How. 330, 344; Sewall v. Jones, 91 U. S. 171, 184; Cochrane v. Deener, supra, 789; Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 185 U. S. 403, 441.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Smith v. Hall, 301 U.S. 216 (U.S. 1937)…ed by a motor driven fan in such manner as to come in contact with the eggs placed within the chamber in stacks of trays, and to return to the fan by means of which it was continuously recirculated. See Smith v. Snow, supra, 19, 20; Waxham v. Smith, 294 U. S. 20, 22. Both incubators were of large capacity. That in Brooklyn was built for 6,000 eggs, although it does not appear that it ever contained more than 2,000 eggs at any one time, and that in Muskogee was for 30,000 eggs. It is plain that Hastings buil…
-
Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (U.S. 1972)…metal. A process “involving mechanical operations, and producing a new and useful result,” id., at 385-386, was held to be a patentable process, process patents not being limited to chemical action. Smith v. Snow, 294 U. S. 1, and Waxham v. Smith, 294 U. S. 20, involved a process for setting eggs in staged ineubation [*71] and applying mechanically circulated currents of air to the eggs. The Court, in sustaining the function performed (the hatching of eggs) and the means or process by which that is done,…
-
Application of Charles D. Prater and James Wei, 415 F.2d 1393 (C.C.P.A. 1969)…lghman v. Proctor, 102 U.S. 707, 26 L.Ed. 279 (1880) and The Telephone Cases (Dolbear v. American Bell Tel. Co.) 126 U.S. 1, 8 S.Ct. 778, 31 L.Ed. 863 (1887). See also Smith v. Snow, 294 U.S. 1, 55 S.Ct. 279, 79 L.Ed. 721 (1935) and Waxham v. Smith, 294 U.S. 20, 55 S.Ct. 277, 79 L.Ed. 733 (1935), and the analyses thereof in Judge Smith’s previous opinion, supra. . See n. 21, supra. . See Kayton, Patent Protectability of Software: Background and Current Law, in The Law of Software 1968 Proceedings B-25 (1…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 185 U.S. 403 (U.S. 1902)
- Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford, 214 U.S. 366 (U.S. 1909)
- Holland Furniture Co. v. Perkins Glue Co., 277 U.S. 245 (U.S. 1928)
- Winans v. Adam, 15 How. 330 (U.S. 1853)
- Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780 (U.S. 1876)
- Risdon Iron and Locomotive Works v. Medart, 158 U.S. 68 (U.S. 1895)
- Erastus Corning and John F. Winslow v. Burden, 15 How. 252 (U.S. 1853)
- Sewall v. Jones, 91 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1875)
- Waxham v. Smith, 70 F.2d 457 (9th Cir. 1934)