James. Lord Coke's opinion, therefore, seems to have been formed without due consideration; and modern experience shows that it is not well founded." (8 T. Rep. 104; Dav. P. C. 233.)

The petitioners having applied for a patent in respect of certain improvements in steam-engines, a caveat was entered under an existing patent, from which it was alleged the new patent was borrowed, and with which it would interfere. The affidavit of an engineer was put in, stating that they were not the same, nor in any respect resembling each other.

Lord Chancellor Eldon said: "If the petitioners have invented certain improvements upon an engine for which a patent has been granted, and those improvements could not be used without the original engine, at the end of fourteen years the petitioners could make use of a patent taken out under their improvements, though before that period expired they would have no right to make use of the other's substratum. At the end of that time, the public has a choice between the patents. My present opinion is, that this patent must go." Patent granted. (1 V. & B. 67; 1 Web. P. C. 431.)

(b) LISTER v. LEATHER. [1857]

Lord Campbell, C.J., said: "The second argument was that, if a subsequent patent for a combination includes a part of an invention already protected by patent, it infringes on the property of another, and so is a violation of his right, and ought to be held illegal on account of his interest. The answer is that the patent for an improvement on an invention already the subject of a patent, if confined to the improvement, is not an infringement of the former patent. The use of the improvement with the former invention, during the existence of the former patent, without licence, would be an infringement; but, with licence, that also would be lawful, as is in constant experience. Indeed the objection was carried to the extent that a patent for an improvement on a patent invention of the same patentee would be void; but this rests only on the assumption that the improvement cannot be distinguished from the invention on which it is made. The assertion, that all patents for improvements on existing patents must be void, is obviously untenable." (8 El. & B. 1017.)

(c) RALSTON v. SMITH. H. L. [1865]

The word "manufacture" comprehends a new process or an improvement of an old process. (11 H. L. Cas. 223; 20 Com. B., N. S. 28; 35 L. J., C. P. 49; 13 L. T. Rep., N. S. 1.)

(d) Fox v. DELLESTABLE. [1866]

Malins, V.-C. : "No doubt a man may make an invention which is partly covered by an existing patent, but he cannot use it with

out the licence of the patentee. He may wait for the expiration of the patent, and take out one himself if his invention be novel, and that patent will be valid." (15 W. R. 195.)

(e) EADES v. STARBUCK WAGON COMPANY. [1881]

Eades was owner of a patent for an invention described as being a method of making the body of a tramcar so as to swivel upon the underframe or carriage. There was an existing patent for the same purpose from which Eades' patent differed only in the addition of a lengthening of the truck and the addition of two extra segmental circles for the purpose of better supporting the car:Held, that these additions did not constitute such an invention as to entitle the plaintiff to a patent. (W. N. 1881, 160.)

(ƒ) JENSEN v. SMITH. [1885]

The question being whether there is sufficient invention in the difference between the plaintiff's machine and the alleged antici pation to be the subject of a proper patent, the fair way to try that question is, supposing the plaintiff to have been first, and that some one had then made the machine now alleged to be an anticipation, would the plaintiff have submitted to that, or would he not have said that it was an infringement of his patent? (Griff. 136; 2 O. R. 249.)

(*) PHILPOTT v. HANBURY. [1885]

The plaintiff's patent was for improvements in apparatus for use in drafting patterns for dresses :-Held, that as patents already existed by which you could supplement measurements by applying curves, you could not get a valid fresh patent by putting new curves or slightly changed curves to the measurements. (2 O. R. 33.)

(g) UNITED HORSESHOE AND NAIL COMPANY v. SWEDISH HORSENAIL COMPANY. [1888]

The substitution of a pivot for a hinge in connection with a movable plate for the conductor of a finishing machine for nails is not good subject-matter. (6 O. R. 1.)

(h) COLE v. SAQUI. C. A. [1888]

The introduction into an automaton toy of a free top spun in a cup as the motor in place of a top spun on a fixed bearing is merely the substitution of one known mechanical equivalent for another, and is not patentable. (6 O. R. 41.)

(i) HERBURGER SCHWANDER ET CIE v. SQUIRE. C. A. [1889]

A method of modifying the action of a lever in pianoforte actions by using an arm at right angles or nearly so, and placing the centre of the damper at the end of the arm is not good subjectmatter. (6 0. R. 194.)

(j) BLAKEY V. LATHAM AND COMPANY. C. A. [1889]

The plaintiff claimed an improved heel plate properly shaped to fit the heel of a boot or shoe, and formed or provided with pegs, spikes, or teeth, whereby it is secured on the heel as described. The invention was said to consist in making the spikes solid with the plate, whereas formerly holes were made in the plate and spikes driven through. Smaller plates called clinkers with two prongs solidly attached had long been known and used to protect the toes of boots. Held, by the Court of Appeal that the patent was bad for want of subject-matter. Cotton, L.J.: "We were much pressed with Hayward v. Hamilton. I doubted about it for a considerable time, and I do not agree with all that the Master of the Rolls says there, but there really was invention in that case." (6 O. R. 184.)

(k) SLAZENGER v. FELTHAM. C. A. [1889]

Kekewich, J., following North, J., in Moss v. Malings had held that a patent for making grooves down the handles of lawn tennis racquets and adding a knob to make an enlargement at the end was good so far as subject-matter was concerned :-Held, by the Court of Appeal, that it was merely a roughing of the handle similar to the grooves made on the stock of a gun, or the twine on a cricket bat, and the knob at the end of the handle of a hammer, and was not the subject-matter of a patent. (5 T. L. R. 364; 6 0. R. 232.)

Application of a known Machine, Process or Material to a New Purpose. (1) HARTLEY'S CASE.

A method of disposing plates of iron so as to produce a useful effect, viz., to secure buildings from fire, is a good subject-matter, (2 H. Bl. 493.)

(m) MACINTOSH v. EVERINGTON.

A claim for the application of indiarubber, in a state of solution, as a cement between two fabrics to make a waterproof covering is good, notwithstanding the application of other substances, and of indiarubber in other states, to the same purpose. (6 Rep. Arts, N. S. 317, 365.)

(n) BRUNTON v. HAWKES. [1821]

Patent for improvements in ships' anchors, &c. Abbott, C.J., in speaking of the anchors, says: "Formerly three pieces were united together, the plaintiff unites only two; and, if the union of those two had been effected in a mode unknown before, as applied in any degree to similar purposes, I should have thought it a good ground for a patent." (4 B. & Ald. 550.)

(0) LOSH v. HAGUE. N. P. [1838]

There is a material difference between applying a new contrivance to an old object, and an old contrivance to a new object. (1 Web. P. C. 207.)

(p) KAY v. MARSHALL. H. L. [1841]

Lord Cottenham, L.C., said, in the House of Lords: "If he (the patentee) has discovered any means of using the machine, which the world had not known before the benefit of, that he has a right to secure to himself by means of a patent; but if this mode (described in the specification) of using the spinning machine was known before, then the plaintiff cannot deprive them of having the benefit of that which they enjoyed before." (2 Web. P. C. 82.)

(q) WALTON v. POTTER. [1841]

The adaptation of a substance of known properties to a particular purpose may be the subject of a patent. An invention of improvements in cards for carding wool, cotton, silk and other fibrous substances, and for raising the pile of woollen and other cloths by the application and adaptation of caoutchouc or indiarubber, as a substitute for the fillets or sheets of leather, is patentable.

Coltman, J., said; "It appears to me that it is a very useful application and adaptation of a substance, the properties and qualities of which for the purpose had never been known before, and therefore that it was properly the subject of a patent." (4 Scott's N. R. 91; 3 M. & G. 411; 1 Web. P. C. 597.)

(r) MUNTZ v. FOSTER. N. P. [1844]

Action for the infringement of a patent, granted to the plaintiff in 1832, for "an improved manufacture of metal plates for sheathing the bottoms of ships or other such vessels." The defendants pleaded (inter alia) want of novelty in the invention. Tindal, C.J., "I look upon the invention to consist in this, that he has by an experiment ascertained that a certain mixture of the alloy of zinc with copper will have the effect of producing a better sheathing, by reason and by means of its oxydating just in sufficient quantity; that is, not too much, so as to wear away and impair the sheathing, and render the vessel unsafe, but enough at the same time to keep, by its wearing, the bottom of the vessel clean from those impurities which before attached to it. That I consider to be the meaning of the patent, and the object with which it was taken out. And I cannot think, as at present advised, that if it was shown (as possibly it may be), that sheets had been made of metal before, in the same proportions which he has pointed out; that if this hidden virtue or quality had not been discovered or ascertained, and consequently the application never made, I cannot think the patent will fail on that ground. . . . When I come to that part of the case in which they (the defendants) seek to show this is not so (a proper ground of a patent), because these metal plates have been invented before-that is, persons have used them before in my judgment it will not go far enough, unless they can show there has been some application of them before to this very useful purpose." (2 Web. P. C. 103.)

(8) Pow v. TAUNTON. [1845]

Patent for the invention of a nipping lever for causing the rotation of wheels, shafts or cylinders, under certain circumstances. The specification claimed as the invention "the nipping lever, with its tusk and sliding box, applied to a rimmed wheel, or to a rimmed flange, for the purpose of causing the same to rotate or move together with any shaft, cylinder, or other suitable machinery which may be attached thereto." The nipping lever was not new, but the application of it by means of the sliding box was new. Denman, C.J., said: "As the plaintiff did not claim the invention of the nipping lever, but only the application of it to a subjectmatter, to which it had not been applied before, it was contended, for the defendant, that the mere application of a known instrument to a new purpose will not support a patent, unless the means or method of the application is also new. The application of a nipping lever to the surface of a wheel, for the purpose of making it revolve, may be new, but the mere novelty of the application is not enough; it must also appear that the means, essential for carrying the application into effect, are new also. In the present case, the means for applying the old invention to the new purpose are the sliding boxes; and, if they are essential to the application, and novel as means for the purpose, the patent may be supported." (9 Jur. 1056.)

(t) REG. v. CUTLER. N. P. [1847]

Scire facias to repeal letters patent granted to the defendant for "Improvements in the construction of the tubular flues of steam boilers." The specification described two methods of welding iron tubes, and a method of making iron tubes coated with copper, brass, &c. The patentee after claiming the two methods, described in the specification, of welding iron tubes, and disclaiming the method of coating iron tubes with copper, &c., proceeded thus: "Thirdly: I claim the application of either iron or steel tubes, when coated with copper, brass, or other alloys of copper, in the construction of tubular flues for steam boilers. And, fourthly I claim, in the construction of tubular flues of steam boilers, the application of welded iron or steel tubes, which have been drawn through a circular hole or die, or between rollers, and which have been drawn over a mandrel." Among other suggestions of grounds for the repeal of the patent, it was contended for the Crown that the supposed invention described in these claims, was not a principle of working or making any manner of new manufacture. Lord Denman, C.J., said: With regard to the third and fourth claims, in which the defendant Cutler claims the application of tubes in the construction of tubular flues, it appears to me that he has no right to take out a patent for the mere application of particular things to any particular purpose. If he had made a new combination, that might have been a new discovery, and a proper subject for a patent; but I think Lord Abinger's illustration is a striking

66