Function or abstract effect of a machine
Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court
Definitions from Case Law
From 56 U.S. 252 - Erastus Corning and John Winslow v. Peter a Burden · 1853Most cited · 281 citing opinions
not patentable
But it is well settled that a man cannot have a patent for the function or abstract effect of a machine, but only for the machine which produces it.
How often courts cite the case defining “Function or abstract effect of a machine”
Court decisions citing the opinion that defined “Function or abstract effect of a machine” — 279 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining case as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.