Brooktree v. Advanced Micro Devices

Brooktree v. Advanced Micro Devices
24 USPQ 2d 1401
Bluebook cite
Brooktree v. Advanced Micro Devices, 24 USPQ 2d 1401 (1992).
24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1401
Item Type
In this case utility and enablement were based on the same facts and treated the same. The court defined utility as the following:

"The invention must be useful. In order to be useful, as that word is used in the patent laws, the achievement must have practical application and or utility in the same art; that is to say, that the achievement will operate or function in a manner claimed and produce a useful result calculated by the invention.

A patent will only issue for an invention which is useful. A useful invention is one that has substantial or partial utility. For an invention to be useful, it must be operable, that is, capable of being used to achieve the function of the invention. If a claim describes a structure or process that is impossible to achieve, the claim is considered inoperative. A claim that cannot meet the requirements of utility is invalid."

Excerpts and Summaries

Tuesday 28 of July, 2009 14:11:37 GMT
by Unknown
Tuesday 28 of July, 2009 14:11:37 GMT
by Unknown

Portions © 2006-2019 by Michael Risch, Some Rights Reserved | Copyright Notice| Legal Disclaimer