Cutler's Improved Method of Constructing Chains for Suspension Bridges, &c.

remark that I am aware that the links, bolts, or bars of ordinary chains have been before made by stamping them in dies; I do not therefore claim the use of dies for such. purposes generally, but my Invention only relates to the improved mode of constructing dies suitable for shaping projections b, and for producing cavities or sockets b', as herein explained. In forming the bolts, bars, or links previously to stamping, I either forge the same into as nearly the figure desired as possible by hand, or cut them out of thick sheet iron by means of a pair of tools worked in a press, or else I have bars rolled, leaving projections or recesses (as the case may be) at suitable intervals, and each link being heated to a bright red heat it is inserted into its proper dies, and by pressure or by blows the same are caused to close and produce the figure of link, bolt, or bar desired, after which the projections b and the cavities are to be finished in the lathe by means of suitable tools.

Having thus described the nature of my Invention, I would have it understood that what I claim is,

First, the mode of constructing and combining the parts of wrought-iron chains, which I have called the projections b, the sockets b', and the wrought-iron pin e, as above described.

Secondly, I claim the mode of constructing wrought-iron chains with circular projections b and sockets b', and pin e, as described, in respect to Figures 5, 6, 7, and 8.

And, thirdly, I claim the mode of making or forming links, bars, or bolts for chains with projections b and sockets b' by the aid of dies, as above described.

In witness whereof, I, the said Job Cutler, hath hereunto set his hand and seal, the Eleventh day of September, One thousand eight hundred and thirty-nine.

JOB (L.S.) CUTLER.

Re CUTLER'S PATENT.

Before the Chancellor, April 19, 1839.

(1 Web. P. C. 418.)

Proceedings on Sealing Patent. Utility. Similarity of Inventions. Caveat.

Costs.

It is not necessary always to consider the question of utility in passing the letters patent.

The identity of purpose, and not of name, is the criterion in judging of the similarity or dissimilarity of inventions.

A party who had lodged an unsuccessful caveat against the granting of a patent ordered to pay to the patentee the taxed costs occasioned by the caveat.

Petition to the Lord Chancellor to seal letters patent.

The letters prayed for were for "an improved method or methods of constructing chains for suspension bridges, cables, mining and other purposes, and for an improved method or methods of making the bars, links and bolts thereof."

The petition set forth that the Attorney-General had reported in favor of the patent, as first applied for, there having been no opposition on a caveat upon which notice had been given. It alleged the delivery of the privy seal bill, bearing date March 11, on that day at the great seal patent office, and that in due course the patent would have been engrossed and sealed on the 12th. That on March 11 notice was received of a caveat having been entered on the 9th, whereby the patent was stopped, and on the 12th a petition was presented by Cutler that the caveat might be discharged and the letters patent sealed; but before this petition could be heard affidavits were filed on behalf of the opponent Haines, stating that he had invented a chain which he believed Cutler to have pirated, and to be attempting to obtain letters patent for the same. That at the hearing of this petition on March 25 the Lord Chancellor ordered that the matters of the said petition should be referred to the Attorney-General, to inquire and report whether the letters patent ought to issue; that all parties should be re

strained from doing any act relating to the said invention until after the report of the Attorney-General, which was to be made to the Lord Chancellor; and that if the Attorney-General should report that the patent ought to issue, that the same should be sealed as of March 12, but not to be sealed until further order; the question of costs reserved. That at the hearing before the Attorney-General on March 27, it was agreed that each party should produce a model of his invention, and the Attorney-General decided, and the opponents admitted, that there was no similarity between the inventions. That the opponents thereupon attacked the novelty of the invention, and a drawing was produced from a specification of a patent granted to Fussell and Douglas in 1799, but the Attorney-General decided that the inventions were different, and that Cutler was entitled to have his patent allowed; he required, however, an outline of the specification to be left with him, which was accordingly done; the Attorney-General required a fuller description as to part, so as to show more distinctly the invention claimed, and promised to report to the Lord Chancellor on receiving the order of reference. The fuller description required was supplied by certain drawings, which, together with the order of reference, were left with the AttorneyGeneral on the 28th, and Mr. Cutler left town, considering the matter settled. That on the 30th the opponents obtained the appointment of another hearing before the Attorney-General, on a statement that the drawing which had been exhibited as and believed to be a correct representation of Messrs. Fussell and Douglas's invention was incorrect, and upon examination of the original specification it clearly appeared that the invention for which Cutler had applied was old. That Cutler on hearing of this had some models made according to the specification and drawings of Fussell and Douglas's patent, and requested the Attorney-General to see these models before making his report; but this request being refused, notice was immediately given that application would be made to the Lord Chancellor for an order for a further hearing, and that the Attorney-General should in the mean time withhold his

report. That the Attorney-General, however, on April 2 made his report, whereby he certified "that, having examined all proper parties and inspected and considered all necessary papers and documents relating to the matters in his lordship's order mentioned, he was of opinion that the patent ought not to issue, on the ground that the alleged inventions are not new and useful." And he further certified" that this was a different ground from that upon which the caveat was lodged against the said patent, and that it was not until the second meeting that the party objecting to the said patent was prepared to substantiate the said ground of objection thereto."

The petition then stated, as exceptions to the above report, that the ground alleged therein not being before the Attorney-General under the Chancellor's order of March 25, as matter included in the caveat against the great seal being attached to the patent, the Attorney-General was not authorized to go into such foreign matter, or to adopt the proceedings he had adopted; that the Attorney-General having admitted ex parte statements and evidence, the petitioner was entitled to have been allowed to disprove such statements and evidence; that the ground of the report, that the inventions were not new and useful, applied to only one of the four inventions; that the report was grounded on false and fraudulent drawings and representations; and that no disinterested person of science had been called in competent to assist the Attorney-General in coming to a proper conclusion.

Wigram, for the petitioner. The case made by the respondents to the original petition to affix the great seal was, that the invention for which we were seeking to obtain a patent was an invention of their own, and that a communication having taken place between themselves and Mr. Cutler, he had thereby acquired the knowledge of their invention, and was about fraudulently to obtain a patent for that invention. It was quite open for them to suggest anything as to the novelty or the utility, because that was the case they suggested. An application for a patent is not ex debito justitiæ, and the parties are at the discretion of those