Summary

Nathan Clifford Gill v. Wells — Opinion of the Court

An inventor is at liberty when he has made an invention, if it consists of several distinct, effective, new devices, which as an aggregate, may constitute, in his judgment, the best machine in the world, but of which certain of the parts may be omitted, and it still be an effective, new, and useful machine-I say that the inventor is at liberty, in taking out his patent, to protect himself against that species of innovation by claiming the separate, new, and useful parts of the machine by themselves.
Source: Wikisource

Nathan Clifford Gill v. Wells — Opinion of the Court

A party who might think he could make a machine substantially useful for his purpose by omitting these devices, and supplying their places by old devices, having different operation and character, would be at liberty to do so, and thus, practically, a large benefit, or perhaps the whole benefit that is due the inventor might be lost. I say the patent law, therefore, permits the inventor not only to patent the machine as an aggregate, but to patent the new devices which enter into it, so that another may not avail himself of his ingenuity in that respect.
Source: Wikisource

Nathan Clifford Gill v. Wells — Opinion of the Court

Whether one device is or is not an equivalent for another is usually a question of fact, and often becomes a difficult issue to decide. Grave doubts were at one time entertained whether the patentee of an invention consisting of a combination of old ingredients was entitled to equivalents, but it is now well settled that he is just as much as the patentee of any other class of inventions
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature