Buckley LJ held that an invention could produce an old product by a new process: ‘In my opinion the plaintiff fails on subject-matter, and fails on novelty. Of course the difference between discovery and invention is very familiar. Discovery adds to the amount of human knowledge but it does so only by lifting the veil and disclosing something which before had been unseen or dimly seen. Invention also adds to human knowledge, but not merely by disclosing something. Invention necessarily involves also the suggestion of an act to be done, and it must be an act which results in a new product, or a new result, or a new process, or a new combination for producing an old product or an old result.’
Buckley LJ
(1903) 20 RPC 123
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Lantana Ltd v The Comptroller General of Patents, Design and Trade Marks CA 13-Nov-2014
The inventor company appealed against rejection of its application for a patent for a computer program.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘on the facts found by the Hearing Officer, the invention is no more than the computerisation of a process which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 October 2021; Ref: scu.538771
