Editing Utility (patentability requirement) (section)

===Beneficial utility===
Beneficial utility became established as a requirement in United States patent law in 1817 as a result of ''[[Lowell v. Lewis]]'' (1 Mason. 182; 1 Robb, Pat. Cas. 131 Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. May Term. 1817.). The utility criterion established by this case is, as Justice [[Joseph Story]] wrote in the Court's decision, that, to be patentable, an invention must be "useful" and must "not be frivolous or injurious to the well-being, good policy, or sound morals of society".<ref name="lowell">{{Cite web|url=http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/IPCoop/17lowe.html|title = Lowell v. Lewis}}</ref> In spite of this ruling however, patents continued to be granted for devices that could be deemed immoral (e.g. gambling devices, see, e.g., Brewer v. Lichtenstein<ref>278 F. 512 (7th Cir. 1922)</ref> and ''Ex parte Murphy''<ref>200 U.S.P.Q. 801 (P.T.O. Bd. App. 1977)</ref>) or deceitful (see, ''[[Juicy Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc.]]'' (dealing with a juice dispenser that arguably deceived the public into believing that the liquid seen in the attached reservoir was that which was being dispensed)).<ref>185 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1999); 51 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1700</ref> In ''Juicy Whip'', the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit put an end to the requirement: "Congress never intended that the patent laws should displace the police powers of the States, meaning by that term those powers by which the health, good order, peace and general welfare of the community are promoted…we find no basis in section 101 to hold that inventions can be ruled unpatentable for lack of utility simply because they have the capacity to fool some members of the public."([[Juicy Whip Inc. v. Orange Bang Inc.]], 185 F.3d 1364, 1367–68, 51 USPQ2d 1700, 1702-03 (Fed. Cir. 1999), see also [[Manual of Patent Examining Procedure]] 706.03(a)(II))