Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/96667/general-elec-co-vs-wabash-appliance-corp
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 08:15:00+00:00

Document:
1. Product claims 25-27, of Patent No. 1,410,499, to Pacz, for a filament for electric incandescent lamps or other devices, composed substantially of tungsten and made up mainly of a number of comparatively large grains of such size and contour as to prevent substantial sagging and offsetting during a normal or commercially useful life for such a lamp or other device, held void for want of a sufficiently definite disclosure. R.S. § 4888; 35 U.S.C. § 33. P. 304 U. S. 368 .
2. Claimed inventions, improvements, and discoveries, turning on points so refined as the granular structure of products, require precise descriptions of the new characteristic for which protection is sought. In a limited field, the variant must be clearly defined. P. 304 U. S. 369 .
3. A patentee may not broaden his product claims by describing the product in terms of function. P. 304 U. S. 370 .
4. A limited use of terms of effect or result, which accurately define the essential qualities of a product to one skilled in the art, may in some instances be permissible and even desirable, but a characteristic essential to novelty may not be distinguished from the old art solely by its tendency to remedy the problems in the art met by the patent. P. 304 U. S. 371 .
5. The difficulty of making adequate description may have some bearing on the sufficiency of the description attempted, but it cannot justify a claim describing nothing new except perhaps in functional terms. P. 304 U. S. 372 .
6. A patentee who does not distinguish his product from what is old except by reference, express or constructive, to the process by which he produced it, cannot secure a monopoly on the product by whatever means produced. P. 304 U. S. 373 .
7. The product claims in question, which seek to monopolize the product, however created, may not be saved by a limitation to products made in accordance with the processes set out in the specification. P. 304 U. S. 374 .
"inform the public during the life of the patent of the limits of the monopoly asserted, so that it may be known which features may be safely used or manufactured without a license and which may not. [ Footnote 5 ]"
The claims "measure the invention." [ Footnote 6 ] Patentees may reasonably anticipate that claimed inventions, improvements, and discoveries, turning on points so refined as the granular structure of products, require precise descriptions of the new characteristic for which protection is sought. In a limited field, the variant must be clearly defined. This was one in a series of patents. United States v. General Electric Co., 272 U. S. 476 , 272 U. S. 480 .
The product claims here involved cannot be validated by reference to the specification. Assuming that, in a proper case, a claim may be upheld by reference to the descriptive part of the specification in order to give definite content to elements stated in the claim in broad or functional terms, [ Footnote 14 ] the specification of the Pacz patent does not attempt in any way to describe the filament, except by mention of its coarse-grained quality. Even assuming that definiteness may be imparted to the product claim by that part of the specification which purportedly details only a method of making the product, [ Footnote 15 ] the description of the Pacz process is likewise silent as to the nature of the filament product. Although, in some instances, a claim may validly describe a new product with some reference to the method of production, [ Footnote 16 ] a patentee who does not distinguish his product from what is old except by reference, express or constructive, to the process by which he produced it cannot secure a monopoly on the product by whatever means produced.
held to infringe the patent which is not made by that process. [ Footnote 17 ]"
Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U. S. 568 , 94 U. S. 570 .
Cf. The Incandescent Lamp Patent, 159 U. S. 465 , 159 U. S. 474 ff.
See Brooks v. Fiske, 15 How. 212, 56 U. S. 215 .
Permutit Co. v. Graver Corp., 284 U. S. 52 , 284 U. S. 60 ; Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. 218, 31 U. S. 247 .
Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U. S. 405 , 210 U. S. 419 .
Holland Furniture Co. v. Perkins Glue Co., 277 U. S. 245 , 277 U. S. 256 -258, and cases cited.
277 U.S. at 277 U. S. 258 .
Compare 86 U. S. Tilghman, 19 Wall. 287, 86 U. S. 391 ; Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co., 170 U. S. 537 , 170 U. S. 557 -558.
Compare Holland Furniture Co. v. Perkins Glue Co., 277 U.S. at 277 U. S. 255 , with United States Repair & Guarantee Co. v. Assyrian Asphalt Co., 183 U. S. 591 , at 183 U. S. 600 -601.
Cochrane v. Badische Anilin & Soda Fabrik, 111 U. S. 293 , 111 U. S. 310 . See also Hide-Ite Leather Co. v. Fiber Products Co., 226 F. 34, 36; cf. Maurer v. Dickerson, 113 F.2d 870, 874.
Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 93 U. S. 486 ; Cochrane v. Badische Anilin & Soda Fabrik, 111 U. S. 293 , 111 U. S. 310 ; Plummer v. Sargent, 120 U. S. 442 , 120 U. S. 448 ; Downes v. Teter-Heany Development Co., 150 F. 122; Hide-Ite Leather Co. v. Fiber Products Co., 226 F. 34.
Compare McCarty v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 160 U. S. 110 , 160 U. S. 116 ; Altoona Publix Theaters v. American Tri-Ergon Corp., 294 U. S. 477 , 294 U. S. 487 .

References: § 4888
 § 33
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.