Summary

Frank Murphy Dow Chemical Company v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company Halliburton Oil Well Cemeting Company…

The fact that prior to 1932 no one had apparently thought to use an inhibitor while acidizing an oil well to increase production cannot inject into the Grebe-Sanford process the attributes of an invention. Especially is this so since there is no evidence of any one trying unsuccessfully to inhibit hydrochloric acid for such purposes. He who is merely the first to utilize the existing fund of public knowledge for new and obvious purposes must be satisfied with whatever fame, personal satisfaction or commercial success he may be able to achieve.
Source: Wikisource

Frank Murphy Dow Chemical Company v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company Halliburton Oil Well Cemeting Company…

Any advantage in cost or simplicity which the use of the ordinary pump tube may give is the result of the use of an inhibitor in the acid rather than any intrinsic merit of the pump tube. It is elemental that the mere substitution of equivalents which do substantially the same thing in the same way, even though better results may be produced, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent.
Source: Wikisource

Frank Murphy Dow Chemical Company v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company Halliburton Oil Well Cemeting Company…

The stated object of the Grebe-Sanford patent is 'to counteract some preventable natural causes for the decline of yield of a well' where the well has been drilled into a limestone or other calcareous formation. As oil is pumped from a well, the underground flow to the well decreases and the yield declines until pumping is no longer profitable.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature