Brooktree v. Advanced Micro Devices

Name: Brooktree v. Advanced Micro Devices
Cite: 24 USPQ 2d 1401
Year: 1992
Bluebook cite: Brooktree v. Advanced Micro Devices, 24 USPQ 2d 1401 (1992).
Author
URL: 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1401
Item Type: case
Summary: In this case utility and enablement were based on the same facts and treated the same. The court defined utility as the following:

"The invention must be useful. In order to be useful, as that word is used in the patent laws, the achievement must have practical application and or utility in the same art; that is to say, that the achievement will operate or function in a manner claimed and produce a useful result calculated by the invention.

A patent will only issue for an invention which is useful. A useful invention is one that has substantial or partial utility. For an invention to be useful, it must be operable, that is, capable of being used to achieve the function of the invention. If a claim describes a structure or process that is impossible to achieve, the claim is considered inoperative. A claim that cannot meet the requirements of utility is invalid."

The original document is available at https://michaelrisch.com/tiki/item1378