The OYEZ Project site has updated its patent content significantly over the past few months. \u00a0The oral arguments from most of the historical patent cases on the site are now available.<\/p>\n
Listen to the Marshal of the Supreme Court open court proceedings here: \u00a0[Link<\/a>]. \u00a0Please consider supporting the OYEZ project: \u00a0[here<\/a>].<\/p>\n I’ve recently been listening to the oral argument from the 1961 case of Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Co.<\/span> (Aro I) where the Court took exception to a “heart of the invention” analysis. \u00a0You can listen to the Aro I<\/span> oral arguments here: [Part I<\/a>], [Part 2<\/a>].<\/p>\n —————————————————————————————–<\/p>\n For if anything is settled in the patent law, it is that the combination patent covers only the totality of the elements in the claim, and that no element, separately viewed, is within the grant.\u00a0See the Mercoid cases, supra,<\/em> 320 U.S. at\u00a0320 U. S. 667<\/span><\/a><\/span>; 320 U.S. at\u00a0320 U. S. 684<\/span><\/a><\/span>. [<\/span><\/a>Footnote 10<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>] The basic fallacy in respondent’s position is that it requires the ascribing to one element of the patented combination the status of patented invention in itself. Yet this Court has made it clear in the twoMercoid<\/em> cases that there is no legally recognizable or protected “essential” element, “gist” or “heart” of the invention in a combination patent. In\u00a0Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Co., supra,<\/em> the Court said:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n “That result may not be obviated in the present case by calling the combustion stoker switch the ‘heart of the invention’ or the ‘advance in the art.’ The patent is for a combination only. Since none of the separate elements of the combination is claimed as the invention, none of them, when dealt with separately, is protected by the patent monopoly.”<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n