and impelling water by means of introducing it into compressed air in virtue of centrifugal force imported thereto by such machinery, and the application of the before-mentioned inventions both when used in combination and when used severally. The use of a wheel with hollow spokes for raising and propelling water by virtue of centrifugal force was not new; but the plaintiff's improvement consisted in a new combination of the hollow wheel with other machinery. In an action for infringing the Patent, it was held that, "primâ facie, the Patentee has as his invention all the machinery which he described in the Specification." The Specification was therefore bad, because it described the wheel as part of the machinery for raising and impelling water, and did not point out that it was old and that it was not claimed.

The introduction of any one objectionable item into the Patent is fatal to the whole. "This was the case with that admirable and useful invention the chain cable. That it was a worthy subject for Letters-patent no one could doubt; but it so happened that the inventor thought he had invented an anchor and included the same in his Patent. It afterwards appeared that some other person had used one before of a similar construction. The whole Patent, as well for the chain cable as for the anchor, was declared void." The objection of there being two distinct inventions" under one Patent does not seem to have been pressed.

In Manton v. Parker," the invention was a gun, very materially improved by a peculiar construction of lock. The Specification gave reason to suppose that the lip, the groove and the hole, in the arrangement of which the

'Lord Brougham (1835), H. of Lords, 28 Hans. 472.

m Second Set of Rules and Regulations under the Act 15 & 16 Vict. c. 83.

Infringement (1814), Dav. Pat. Ca. 329. See also Manton v. Manton (1815), Dav. Pat. Ca. 333.

Witnesses were

improvement consisted, were all new.
called to impeach the novelty, who proved that they had
constructed locks on the same principle, but had not
made them answer. Experienced gunsmiths spoke to
the efficient condition of the plaintiff's invention. He
was, however, nonsuited.

vention.

The Patentee is bound to give all the information he Use of the inpossesses to the public, and, as a part of it, necessarily the uses to which his invention may be put. In so doing, however, he must be careful not to include matters to which it has not been ascertained by actual practice to be applicable, or of which the modus operandi is not contained in the Specification. As a general rule, if in a Specification the Patentee states that his invention may be carried into effect by either of two modes, and it be shown that one of these modes is impracticable, the patent fails." In Felton v. Greaves, the Patent was for a machine "for sharpening knives, razors and scissors." The Specification disclosed a method applicable to knives only. The plaintiff (the Patentee) was nonsuited. In Heath v. Unwin it was held (dissentiente Alderson, B., and Coleridge, J.), that the modus operandi given by the Patentee in his Specification was only one instance of the ways in which the invention might be used; and in Wallington v. Dale, on similar grounds, a Specification was held sufficient, describing a process (of which a material part consisted in reducing hides to shavings) as commenced by "reducing skins or hides to their shavings or films by some suitable instrument. The instrument I have used has been an ordinary carpenters' plane." In Beard v. Egerton' the process prescribed by the Pa

" R. v. Cutler (1847), Q. B., tubular flues, 3 C. & K. 215. 3 C. & P. 61; Web. P. R. 42.

P (1852) Exch. Ch., steel carburet of manganese, 19 L. T. 272; (1845) Exch. 13 M. & W. 583.

Г

(1852) Exch. 19 L. T. 187.

(1849), photographs, 8 C. B. 165.

Drawings.

tentee in his Specification was complex, and involved in its success very delicate manipulation. Its sufficiency turned mainly upon the period of the application of the acid. The Court decided that an ambiguous direction. was to be interpreted in such a manner as was found to render the process a successful one, it being proved that the application of the acid after the second operation, viz. the coating the plate with iodine, would render the whole process abortive. On the other hand, Bloxam v. Elsees and Hastings v. Brown are cases in which the Patentee was held rigorously to the terms of his Specification. In Stevens v. Keating," the Specification, after stating the mode of using the cement made according to the directions of the Patentee, concluded by stating that "other alkalies and acids besides those before mentioned would answer the purposes of the invention, though not so well." The Specification was held bad, for that either the inventor claimed all acids and alkalies, or only those which would answer the purpose. In the former case it was bad, as some acids and alkalies would not answer the purposes of the invention; in the latter it was bad for not specifying those acids and alkalies which would be found to succeed.

With regard to drawings, there existed formerly tech

(1825), paper, 6 B. & C. 169; 9 D. & R. 215; 1 C. & P. 558; R. & M. 187.

t (1853) Q. B., windlasses, 1 E. & B. 450.

" (1848), plasters, stucoes and cements, 2 Exch. 772; (1847) Ch., injunction, 2 Phill. 333.

"I take it to be clear," says Lord Eldon, in Ex parte Fox (1812, steam-engine, 1 V. & B. 167), " that a man may, if he chooses, annex to his Specification a picture or a model descriptive of it, but his Specification must be in itself sufficient, or I apprehend it will be bad. At present, however, the drawings form part of and stand on the same footing with the rest of the Specification." Hastings v. Brown (1853), windlasses, Q. B., 1 E. & B. 454. Drawings explanatory of the Specification, Lowe v. Penn (1848), screw popeller, N. P., Denman, C. J., 32 Lon. Journ. 140.

nical rules inconvenient and unsuited to the subject. At present the relaxation may be said to be complete. The object of the Specification is the full description of the invention, and for this purpose, it is evident, a drawing alone may sometimes be sufficient. In Hastings v. Brown, the Court decided that a drawing might be taken to explain an ambiguity in the written description. The details prescribed with respect to the drawings Rules as to drawings. accompanying the Provisional Specification at present are as follows. They must be on paper, parchment or cloth, with an inch margin all round, and when folded must be of the size of twelve inches by eight and a half. Those with the complete Specification must be on parchment, twenty-one and a half by fourteen and three quarters inches, or twenty-nine and a half by twenty-one and a half, with one inch and a half margin all round. The Commissioners recommend a scale of one inch to a foot for elevation drawings.*

ceived.

The object of the Specification being considered, the Models not rerejection of models and specimens, the clearest source of instruction in the case of mechanical inventions, seems an unfortunate course adopted by the Commissionerstheir collection being carefully attended to, and with the best effect, in the United States.

On the discovery of any principle or property of mat- First requisite. ter capable of being applied so as to effect an improvement in trade, the first requisite is to consider to what articles of commerce it should be applied, with the probability of creating a remunerative demand," the general

a Williams v. Brodie, cited in R. v. Arkwright (1785), Web. P. R.71; Bloxam v. Elsee, 6 B. & Cr. 169 (papermaking); M'Farlane v. Price, 1 Stark. 199 (umbrellas); (1845) Newall v. Webster, 26 Lon. Journ. 1 E. & B. 454 (1853), windlass, Q. B.

r

'See First Set of Rules under 15 & 16 Vict. c. 83, dated Oct. 15, 1852.

t Order of Lord St. Leonards (1852-3), note.

Urling (1845), Introd. ix. (1851), Evid. 164, Carpmael.

Differ from
Copyright.

application of the principle, as before said, not being appropriable. The next is to secure to the discoverer the exclusive profit of trading in those articles. In the great majority of cases, as we have seen, Letters-patent form the means of attaining this monopoly. With the obtaining of such Letters-patent, however, the inventor's task is but begun. Unlike the author of a literary production, the inventor of a new machine, or the discoverer of new arts, cannot dispose of his discovery at once. He must, in many cases, devote himself night and day Inventors' diffi- to the practical application of his principle. Difficulties2 attend all important inventions in manufactures. Time and outlay are necessary to overcome the prejudice against their novelty, and impress the public with confidence in their worth. Watt, it has been said, lost six years in bringing his invention into a good working Lord Norton, of Leith, the inventor of the Patent slip, as a substitute for dry docks, lost the same time before his invention became profitable. A like loss of time, prior to the invention becoming productive, appears to be an almost constant occurrence in important inventions.

culties.

state.

d

The caprice of fashion has ruined some, the uncertainty of the Law many. Lord Ellenborough repealed a Patent for what was allowed to be a new invention, and where the Specification alone communicated to the public the secret of the inventor. In 1778, when an action for infringing Sir R. Arkwright's Patent for spinning machinery was tried in the King's Bench, the y 43 Qu. Rev. (1830), p. 336.

* Phillips, 14; (1851) Evid. 204, Carpmael.

a

Farey's Evid. H. of Com. (1833) on Patents.

b 43 Westm. Rev.

d 43 Qu. Rev. 341.

c32 Ed. Rev. (1819), p. 63.

• Metcalf (1817), N. P. (“ tapering" brush), 2 Stark. 250. A rule for a new trial was refused.

Arkwright v. Nightingale (1785), Web. P. R. 61; Dav. Pat. Ca.