1. Claim 1 of Patent No. 1,262,860, to Smith for a method of
incubating eggs,
held valid and infringed.
See Smith
v. Snow, ante p.
294 U. S. 1. P.
294 U. S.
21.
2. The claim is for a method or process, and not for a machine
or the function of a machine. P.
294 U. S.
21.
3. A method, otherwise patentable, is not to be rejected as
"functional" merely because the specifications show a machine
capable of using it. P.
294 U. S.
22.
4. Infringement of the Smith method is not avoided by use of it,
whether more or less efficiently, in an incubator of different
structure than Smith's. P.
294
U. S. 23.
70 F.2d 457, affirmed.
Page 294 U. S. 21
Certiorari to review a judgment affirming a judgment of the
District Court holding a patent valid and infringed.
MR. JUSTICE STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this companion case to
Smith v. Snow, ante, p.
294 U. S. 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,
158 U. S. 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
Page 294 U. S. 22
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,
56 U. S.
267-268;
Risdon Iron & Locomotive Works v.
Medart, supra, 158 U. S. 77;
Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 780,
94 U. S. 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,
214 U. S.
382-386;
Cochrane v. Deener, supra,
94 U. S.
787-788.
Cf. Holland Furniture Co. v. Perkins Glue
Co., 277 U. S. 245,
277 U. S.
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
Page 294 U. S. 23
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 recirculation 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,
56 U. S. 344;
Sewall v. Jones, 91 U. S. 171,
91 U. S. 184;
Cochrane v. Deener, supra, 94 U. S. 789;
Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 185 U.
S. 403,
185 U. S.
441.
Affirmed.