MACHINE

In patent law. Any contrivance used to’ regulate or augment force or motion; more properly, a complex structure, consisting of a combination, or peculiar modification, of the mechanical powers. The term “machine,” in patent law, includes every mechanical device, or combination of mechanical powers and devices, to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result. But where the result or effect is produced by chemical action, by the operation or application of some element or power of nature, or of one substance to another, such modes, methods, or operations are called “processes.” A new process is usually the result of discovery; a machine, of invention. Corning v. Burden, 15 How. 252, 267, 14 L. Ed. 683. And see Pittsburgh Reduction Co. v. Cowles Electric Co. (C. C.) 55 Fed. 316; Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co. 170 U. S. 537, 18 Sup. Ct. 707, 42 L. Ed. 1136; Burr v. Duryee, 1 Wall. 570, 17 L. Ed. 650; Steams v. Russell, 85 Fed. 225, 29 C. C. A. 121; Wintermute v. Redington, 30 Fed. Cas. 370. Perfect machine. In patent law. A perfected invention; not a perfectly constructed machine, but a machine so constructed as to embody all the essential elements of the invention, in a form that would make them practical and operative so as to accomplish the result. But it is not necessary that it should accomplish that result in the most perfect manner, and be in a condition where it was not susceptible of a higher degree of perfection in its mere mechanical construction. American Hide, etc- Co. v. American Tool, etc., Co., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 299, 1 Fed. Cas. 647.