Process Control Corporation v. V. Hydreclaim Corporation, Defendant-Cross

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding a patent invalid because the claims were inoperative and therefore failed to satisfy the utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 101
• holding claims inoperable because they violate the principle of con- servation of mass
• claim term \discharge rate\ construed in light of the use of the same term in another limitation of the same claim
• “a patentee can act as his own lexicographer to specifically define terms of a claim contrary to their ordinary meaning”
• “[W]hen an impossible limitation, such as a nonsensical method of operation, is clearly embodied within the claim, the claimed invention must be held invalid.”
• “The utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 101 mandates that any patentable invention be useful and, accordingly, the subject matter of the claim must be operable.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).