IV. Software-Patent Notice and Discoverability
A. USCS Art. I § 8, cl. 8
Patent laws promote the progress of science and useful arts by rewarding innovation with a temporary monopoly. In exchange for rights to a patent, the inventor is required to describe his work in full, clear, concise, and exact terms, as required in 35 USCS § 112, para. 1. Auto. Techs. Int’l v BMW of North America (2005, ED Mich) 378 F Supp 2d 780.
Specification has two objectives. The first is to publicize the manner of constructing the machine (if the invention is a machine) so others may make and use it and so the public may enjoy the full benefit of the discovery after the patent expires. The second is to publicize what the patent holder claims as his own invention to determine whether the claim involves anything that is in common use or is already known, and to guard against prejudice or injury from use of invention, which may otherwise be innocently suppose not to be patented. Evans v Eaton (1822) 20 US 356, 7 Wheat 356, 5 L Ed 472; Incandescent Lamp Patent (1895) 159 US 465, 40 L Ed 221, 16 S Ct 75; Wayne v Humble Oil & Refining Co. (1949, CA5 Tex) 175 F2d 230, 81 USPQ 551; Pennsylvania Crusher Co. v Bethlehem Steel Co. (1951, CA3 Pa) 193 F2d 445, 92 USPQ 31; E. F. Hauserman Co. v Wright Metal, Inc. (1934, DC NY) 9 F Supp 767.
B. 35 USCS § 112
Specification has two objectives. The first is to publicize the manner of constructing the machine (if the invention is a machine) so others may make and use it and so the public may enjoy the full benefit of the discovery after the patent expires. The second is to publicize what the patent holder claims as his own invention to determine whether the claim involves anything that is in common use or is already known, and to guard against prejudice or injury from use of invention, which may otherwise be innocently suppose not to be patented. Evans v Eaton (1822) 20 US 356, 7 Wheat 356, 5 L Ed 472; Incandescent Lamp Patent (1895) 159 US 465, 40 L Ed 221, 16 S Ct 75; Wayne v Humble Oil & Refining Co. (1949, CA5 Tex) 175 F2d 230, 81 USPQ 551; Pennsylvania Crusher Co. v Bethlehem Steel Co. (1951, CA3 Pa) 193 F2d 445, 92 USPQ 31; E. F. Hauserman Co. v Wright Metal, Inc. (1934, DC NY) 9 F Supp 767.
B. 35 USCS § 112
Copyright 2014-2015 by Dennis O'Reilly/Rag Hall -- All rights reserved.