But I wonder how that falls into 101. And I might have to rethink steel
too.
So yea - they both have faults in them where I need to rethink my
examples next time I'm working on those thoughts.
On the topics of steel
and sword. The process does appear to be an appropriate process - it requires
the physical and produces a physical outcome. And it definitely takes skill and
experience.
Neither could fall into "manufacture" if my understanding of
the intent of that word is correct.
Steel couldn't reasonably be said to
be a machine. I'd say a sword is a basic tool. Granted, we have a specific
word that kind of basic tool: weapon. Does it make sense to patent basic tools?
Do basic tools fall into the "machine" sense?
Finally we have
"composition of matter". One
legal dictionary says:
these words are usually applied to
mixtures and chemical compositions, and in these cases it is enough that the
compound is new. Both the composition and the mode of compounding may be
considered as included in the invention, when the compound is
new.
Steel is an alloy - so as a composition of matter it does seem
fit after all. And does so reasonably in my humble opinion. As a result,
instead of "I don't know" I'll have to change that opinion to yes. Keeping in
mind today contains plenty of prior art on that so it should fail otherwise if
someone attempted to patent it today.
A sword though - is simply a
molding of said alloy. So the sword doesn't appear to pass that test.
So
back to the basic tool question:
Does a basic tool fall into the definition
of machine?
A basic definition of machine (not necessarily as the law views
it) is:
An apparatus using or applying mechanical power to perform a
particular task.
In physics, I think the work our muscles do is considered
mechanical power. So in that sense, it is reasonable that the sword would be
considered in the broad category of machine and patentable.
I tend to
think of "machine" though in the sense of moving components - if it doesn't
contain moving parts - is it a machine? But I also think that definition is
based more on a possible illusion I formed as a child then any particular
definition.
A lever is a tool. According to some education
sources, the six most common simple machines are:
lever, pulley,
inclined plane, wedge, screw, and wheel and axle
Definition of the
simple machine is:
Any of the six elementary devices that provide
mechanical or other advantage.
I think the "any of the six" is
slightly misleading as the six are identified as the "most common" - not only.
So that leaves us with:
elementary devices that provide mechanical or other
advantage
A sword does provide advantage over someone with a weapon less
deadly. But I think that's a "reaching" argument (pardon the pun). A sword
added to a device to create a "chopping unit" such as a meat processing device
is reasonably be viewed as a machine.
In that same sense, is the screw
driver considered an elementary machine? Or does it only cross that line when
human ingenuity adds it to a device that we end up calling an assembly line
robot?
Interesting questions. And nope - still haven't decided for
myself whether a sword is reasonably considered a machine (even if only an
elementary machine). I am leaning in that direction though.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
