Summary

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark United States v. Adams (383 U.S. 39…

We believe that the Court of Claims was correct in concluding that the Adams battery is novel. Skrivanoff disclosed the use of magnesium in an electrolyte completely different from that used in Adams. As we have mentioned, it is even open to doubt whether cuprous chloride was a functional element in Skrivanoff. In view of the unchallenged testimony that the Skrivanoff formulation was both dangerous and inoperable, it seems anomalous to suggest that it is an anticipation of Adams. An inoperable invention or one which fails to achieve its intended result does not negative novelty.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark United States v. Adams (383 U.S. 39…

While the patent claims magnesium as an electrode, it specifies that the electrolyte to be used in conjunction with it must be a solution of 'alcoline, chloro-chromate, or a permanganate strengthened with sulphuric acid.' The cathode was a copper or carbon electrode faced with a paste of 'phosphoric acid, amorphous phosphorous, metallic copper in spangles, and cuprous chloride.' This paste is to be mixed with hot sulfuric acid before applying to the electrode.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark United States v. Adams (383 U.S. 39…

The obvious implication from the absence of any mention of an electrolyte-a necessary element in any battery-in the other eight claims reinforces this conclusion. It is evident that respondents' present reliance upon this feature was not the afterthought of an astute patent trial lawyer. In his first contact with the Government less than a month after the patent application was filed, Adams pointed out that 'no acids, alkalines or any other liquid other than plain water is used in this cell. Water does not have to be distilled.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature