|
''Neilson v Harford'' (1841) 151 ER 1266 is a 19th-century English patent law decision that several United States Supreme Court patent law opinions rely upon as authority.〔See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014); Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978); Risdon Iron & Locomotive Works v. Medart, 158 U.S. 68 (1895); Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U.S. 707 (1881); O’Reilly v. Morse. 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62 (1853). See also Laboratory Corp. of Am. Holdings v. Metabolite Labs., Inc., 548 U.S. 124 (2006) (dissenting opinion of Breyer, J.).〕 The question, as Baron Alderson posed it, was “()here is the difference between claiming a principle, which is to be carried into effect any way you will, and claiming a mere principle?”〔''Neilson'', 151 Eng. Rep. at 1272, 8 M. & W. at 820, Web. at 369.〕 The answer, as the opinions of the various courts that have considered the matter develop, is ''nowhere''.〔It might be thought that, under the machine-or-transformation test, patent-eligibility could be based on the transformation of cast iron to steel. That would fail, however, because the mere transformation of iron into steel was old and well known. But if the transformation would be to an improved quality of iron, perhaps lower carbon iron (as it was), the argument might prevail. It is doubtful that any of the courts considering ''Neilson'' had that concept or understood the technology. For a discussion of the point, see Richard H. Stern, (''Mayo v. Prometheus'' ): ''No Patents on Conventional Implementations of Natural Principles and Fundamental Truths'', () 502, 503-04 & n.17.〕 ==Facts== Neilson discovered that a blast furnace for converting high-carbon iron to lower-carbon iron or steel worked better if the air was heated before being blown through the molten iron. He therefore passed the air through a heated chamber on its way to the molten iron. The relevant technology is discussed elsewhere in Wikipedia.〔,” ''“Blast furnace''. It is also discussed in Stern, (''Mayo v Prometheus'' ), () at 503-04 & n.17.〕 Neilson did not specify in detail what form the chamber for heating the air should take. He merely said: The air-vessel or receptacle may be conveniently made of iron, but as the effect does not depend upon the nature of the material, other metals or convenient materials may be used. The size of the air-vessel must depend upon the blast, and upon the heat necessary to be produced. For an ordinary smith’s fire or forge, an air-vessel or receptacle capable of containing 1200 cubic inches will be of proper dimensions; and for a cupola of the usual size for cast-iron founders, an air-vessel capable of containing 10,000 cubic inches will be of a proper size. It was asserted that using the hot blast produced three times as much iron with the same amount of fuel as the cold blast did.〔(''Neilson'' ) in (DNB) at 180 (Leslie Stephen ed. 1894).〕 In addition, the hot blast process permitted the use of cheaper coal instead of more expensive coke, which made it economical to exploit cheaper low-grade iron ore.〔 1784–1879, at 173 (1968).〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Neilson v Harford」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|