Merrill v. Yeomans

Decision Date01 October 1876
CitationMerrill v. Yeomans, 94 U.S. 568, 24 L.Ed. 235 (1876)
PartiesMERRILL v. YEOMANS
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts.

This is a suit by Joshua Merrill, for an infringement of letters-patent No. 90,284, issued to him May 18, 1869, for improved manufacture of two deodorized heavy hydrocarbon oils. The court below found that there was no infringement by the respondents, and dismissed the bill; whereupon the complainant appealed here.

Mr. Charles M. Reed and Mr. Chauncey Smith for the appellant.

Mr. Causten Browne, contra.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellant in this case, who was complainant in the Circuit Court, obtained a patent, in May, 1869, for a new and useful invention, which relates to the heavy hydrocarbon oils; and he sued the appellees, who were defendants in that court, for an infringement of his patent.

The defendants were dealers in oils, and not manufacturers of them. If the appellant's patent was for a new oil, the product of a mode of treating the oils of that character which he describes in his application, the defendants may be liable; for they bought and sold, without license or other authority from him, an oil which is proved to be almost if not quite identical with the one which he produced. If, however, appellant's patent is only for the mode of treating these oils invented and described by him,—in other words, for his new process of making this new article of hydrocarbon oil,—then it is clear the defendants have not infringed the patent, because they never used that process, or any other, for they manufactured none of the oils which they bought and sold.

The counsel for appellant here maintain that his patent is for the new article, and is not for the process, though he describes it fully, by which that article is produced. The appellees insist, with equal earnestness, that the patent is exclusively for the process by which the new oil is made.

The issue thus presented must be decided solely upon a correct construction of the plaintiff's patent, and the accompanying specifications, in which, as required by the act of Congress, he makes the statement of his invention.

No such question could have arisen if appellant had used language which clearly and distinctly points out what it is that he claims in his invention.

We use the word 'claim' as distinct from 'description.' It must be conceded that the appellant's specification describes with minuteness and precision both the instrumentality and the process by which he makes the oil in question. And in regard to a part of the apparatus which he uses, he makes a distinct claim for its invention; and that is not in dispute here. He also describes with fulness and accuracy the process of distillation by which he produces this oil. He gives the temperature to be used, the mode of heating, the degree of rapidity or delay to be used in distilling, the introduction, and the advantage of that introduction, of superheated steam into contact with the oils to be distilled during the process.

He also describes, though in short terms, the article produced, the main feature of which he declares to be its freedom from the offensive odor which, before his invention, seemed to be an inseparable quality of those oils; and he mentions some of the more important uses to which this deodorized oil is applicable in the arts.

It is fairly to be inferred from this statement, that, if all which is described as new in these specifications is really so, the inventor has a right to a patent for three inventions:——

1. For a modification or improvement in the distilling apparatus.

2. For a new process or mode of distilling heavy hydrocarbon oils, by which they are deprived of their offensive odors.

3. For the product of this new process of distillation; namely, the deodorized heavy hydrocarbon oils fitted for use in the arts.

When a man supposes he has made an invention or discovery useful in the arts, and therefore the proper subject of a patent, it is, nine times out of ten, an improvement of some existing article, process, or machine, and is only useful in connection with it. It is necessary, therefore, for him, in his application to the Patent Office, to describe that upon which he engrafts his invention, as well as the invention itself; and, in cases where the invention is a new combination of old devices, he is bound to describe with particularity all these old devices, and then the new mode of combining them, for which he desires a patent. It thus occurs that, in every application for a patent, the descriptive part is necessarily largely occupied with what is not new, in order to an understanding of what is new.

The act of Congress, therefore, very wisely requires of the applicant a distinct and specific statement of what he claims to be new, and to be his invention. In practice, this allegation of the distinct matters for which he claims a patent comes at the close of the schedule or specification, and is often accompanied by a disclaimer of any title to certain matters before described, in order to prevent conflicts with pre-existing patents.

This distinct and formal claim is, therefore, of primary importance, in the effort to ascertain precisely what it is that is patented to the appellant in this case.

In this part of his application he makes two separate claims, the second of which relates to a modification of the distilling apparatus, and is not in dispute here. Turning our attention to the first claim, we are compelled to say that the language is far from possessing that precision and clearness of statement with which one who proposes to secure a monopoly at the expense of the public ought to describe the thing which no one but himself can use or enjoy, without paying him for the privilege of doing so. It is as follows:——

'I claim the above-described new manufacture of the deodorized heavy hydrocarbon oils, suitable for lubricating and other...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
210 cases
  • Atlantic Thermoplastics Co., Inc. v. Faytex Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • July 13, 1992
    ...Supreme Court case in this time frame illustrated the significance of claiming a product with process limitations. In Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U.S. 568, 24 L.Ed. 235 (1877), the patentee of heavy hydrocarbon oils deodorized by an innovative process sued retailers. These retailers sold a produ......
  • Autogiro Company of America v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • October 13, 1967
    ...infringes the patent." 4 E. g., Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Greenleaf, 117 U.S. 554, 6 S.Ct. 846, 29 L.Ed. 952 (1886); Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U.S. 568, 24 L.Ed. 235 (1876); Keystone Bridge Co. v. Phoenix Iron Co., 95 U.S. 274, 24 L.Ed. 344 (1877); Smith v. Snow, 294 U.S. 1, 55 S.Ct. 279, 79 L.Ed.......
  • United States v. General Electric Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • April 4, 1949
    ...v. Fear, 9 Cir., 104 F.2d 892, at page 899, the court therein citing Keplinger v. De Young, 10 Wheat. 358, 6 L.Ed. 341; Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U.S. 568, 24 L.Ed. 235; Salvage Process Co. v. James Shewan & Sons, Inc., D.C., 26 F.2d 258; Goodyear v. Central R. Co., of New Jersey, 10 Fed.Cas. ......
  • Henry J. Kaiser Company v. McLouth Steel Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • July 6, 1966
    ...and it must be accurately defined, to be patentable." In this connection, the Supreme Court commented in Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U.S. 568, 574, 24 L.Ed. 235 (1876): "It seems to us that nothing can be more just and fair both to the patentee and to the public, than that the former should unde......
  • Get Started for Free
2 firm's commentaries
10 books & journal articles
  • Construing patent claims according to their "interpretive community": a call for an attorney-plus-artisan perspective.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Vol. 21 No. 2, March 2008
    • March 22, 2008
    ...that the "specification and claim shall be signed." Id. (155.) See supra note 136 and accompanying text. (156.) Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U.S. 568, 570 (157.) MERGES & DUFFY, supra note 91, at 785. (158.) See Giles S. Rich, Foreword to CHISUM ET AL., supra note 26, at iii,, v ("Th[e] langu......
  • Antitrust Issues Involving Intellectual Property
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Law Developments (Ninth Edition) - Volume II
    • February 2, 2022
    ...prior to commercial marketing or use of the patented product. Id. §§ 154(b), 156. 8. See id. § 112(b). 9. See, e.g. , Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U.S. 568, 570 (1876); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 10. Phillips , 415 F.3d at 1315. Claims must be “sufficie......
  • INFRINGEMENT, UNBOUND.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Vol. 32 No. 1, September 2018
    • September 22, 2018
    ...881 F.3d 1360, 1369-70 (Fed. Cir. 2018). (64.) Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Merrill v. Yeo-mans, 94 U.S. 568, 570 (65.) Id. at 1312 (quoting White v. Dunbar, 119 U.S. 47, 52 (1886)). (66.) Id. at 1313. (67.) Id. at 1319. (68.) Winans v. Denmead, 56 U.......
  • Reconsidering estoppel: patent administration and the failure of Festo.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 151 No. 1, November 2002
    • November 1, 2002
    ...of the applicant `a distinct and specific statement of what he claims to be new, and to be his invention.'" (quoting Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U.S. 568, 570 (131) See, e.g., Nat'l Recovery Techs., Inc. v. Magnetic Separation Sys., Inc., 166 F.3d 1190, 1195-96 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("The enablement ......
  • Get Started for Free