—"*** a process, which amounts to no more than the mere function of a machine, is not patentable.***"

"The claims sought to be patented are...: '1. The described method of manufacturing a symmetrical movable coil for an electrical measuring instrument, consisting in first forming a supporting frame or spool by subjecting a short tube of metal to pressure until the desired conformation and shape is obtained, then winding the coil thereon and finally securing the pivot-pins …

—opinion that a method is not a "useful art" on account of being performed by a human operator who uses his brain.

At most the claim does no more than describe the method by specifying the apparatus used in the operation. This is not sufficient.

It is well settled that a process which is the mere function of an apparatus is not patentable, and that a process which cannot be carried out apart from a particular apparatus is the mere function of that apparatus.

—the fibre was torn transversely-the change in which the invention consisted being solely in the method of using the machine, which method was not contemplated originally in making the machine, did not necessarily result from its operation, required evident invention, and produced a new and improved result

The function of the apparatus doctrine evolved as a result of the unsuccessful attempt by the Supreme Court to delineate processes that were patentable from those that were not. Abstract principles were clearly not patentable processes, "'while a process which consisted of a series of tangible acts and produced a new product, such as" to increase the production of the …

—ignoring the language quoted above, and indicated that there were only two classes of patentable processes: those involving chemical or other elemental action; and those of a mechanical nature not absolutely dependent upon a machine.

[CITATION] Deputy Solicitor General Wallace argued the cause for peti-tioner. With him …