mentioned at the bar, as also Tennant's patent for bleaching liquor, and they stand so contrasted as to illustrate the distinction to which I allude." (2 B. Moo. 451; 8 Taunt. 394; 1 Web. P. C. 244.)

(f) HULLET. HAGUE. [1831]

When the object of two patents is the same, but the mode of effecting that object, which is the thing claimed, is different, the prior patent does not affect the novelty of the subsequent one.

A patent was taken out for improvements in evaporating sugar, &c. The specification stated that the invention consisted in forcing air through the liquid or solution subjected to evaporation by means of pipes, whose extremities reach nearly to the upper or interior area of the bottom of the pan or boiler containing such liquid or solution, the other extremities of such pipes being connected with larger pipes, which communicate with the bellows. The lesser pipes were to be equally distributed, and their lower ends on a level with each other. It was further declared, that the form of the apparatus might be varied, provided the essential properties were maintained:-Held, that taking the whole of the specification together, it appeared that the invention consisted of the particular method or process of forcing, by means of bellows, &c., air through the liquid subjected to evaporation, viz., by pipes connected with larger pipes, and placed as mentioned in the specification; and, therefore, that it was not void because another patent had been before granted to other persons for effecting the same object, by a coil of pipes (lying at the bottom of the vessel), perforated with small holes, or by a shallow cullender placed at the bottom of the vessel. (2 B. & Ad. 370.)

(g) BROWN v. ANNANDALE. H. L. [1842]

It is essential to the validity of a Scotch patent that the invention should be new in England as well as in Scotland. Accordingly evidence of the public use of an invention in England prior to the date of letters patent for Scotland is admissible, and will invalidate such letters patent. (1 Web. P. C. 433; 8 Cl. & F. 437.)

(h) Newton v. THE GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY. [1846]

Pollock, C.B.: "In order to ascertain the novelty, you take the entire invention, and if, in all its parts combined together, it answer the purpose by the introduction of any new matter, by any new combination, or by a new application, it is a novelty entitled to a patent." Alderson, B.: "In considering whether the invention is new, the proper mode is to take the specification altogether, and see whether the matter claimed as a whole is new. Now, the whole which may be new as claimed, may consist in some degree of old parts, and in some degree of new parts. The question of novelty, however, will depend on whether the whole taken altogether is new, though it may in part consist of old parts, provided the patentee does not clai.n

♦

the old parts, but only the combination of them and the new." (5 Exch. 334; 20 L. J., Exch. 429.)

(i) NEWTON v. VAUCHER. [1851]

The defendant in 1839 obtained a patent for an improvement in packing hydraulic and other machines by means of a lining of soft metal, the effect of which was to make certain parts of the machines air and fluid tight. Subsequently to this the plaintiffs discovered that the same soft metal had the effect of diminishing friction, and of preventing the evolution of heat when applied to the surfaces in contact of machines in rapid motion and subject to pressure; and he embodied the application of that discovery to machines in a patent, dated 1843.Held, that as the plaintiff's application of the soft metal differed essentially from that of the defendant, the plaintiff's patent was new. (6 Ex. Rep. 859; 21 L. J., Ex. 305.)

(j) DAW v. ELEY. Ch. [1867]

The antecedent existence of an invention which was so far similar, that, if subsequent in date to the patent, it would have been held a colourable and clumsy imitation for the purpose of effecting the same result, did not invalidate the patent by anticipation. (L. Rep., 3 Eq. 496; 14 W. R. 126; 13 L. T. Rep., N. S. 399.)

(k) PARKES v. STEVENS. Ch. [1869]

When, in a patent for an entire combination, the novelty of any individual part of the combination has to be determined, it is best done by asking whether, upon the evidence, it could by itself have been the subject of a valid patent. (L. Rep., 5 Ch. 38; 18 W. R. 234; 22 L. T. Rep., N. S. 639.)

(1) CANNINGTON v. NUTTALL. H. L. [1871]

The Lord Chancellor, moving the judgment of the House of Lords, said: "I take it that the test of novelty is this: Is the product which is the result of the apparatus for which an inventor claims letters patent, effectively obtained by means of your new apparatus, whereas it had never before been effectively obtained by any of the separate portions of the apparatus which you have now combined into one valuable whole for the purpose of effecting the object you have in view." (L. Rep., 5 H. L. 216.) His Lordship considered the following direction to a jury to be correct: "If a person takes well-known processes from a great number of sources and a great many inventions, and adapts them altogether to a perfectly new combination, for a perfectly new purpose, their previous use is not an anticipation of the patent." (lb. 222.) (L. Rep., 5 H. L. 205; 40 L. J., Eq. 739.) (m) MURRAY v. CLAYTON. Ch. [1872]

Sir W. M. James, L.J., in the course of his judgment in this case, said: "I am not aware of any principle or authority upon which the exhibition of a useless machine which turns out

a failure can be held to affect the right of a patentee who has made a successful machine, although there may be a degree of similarity between some of the details of the two machines." (L. Rep., 7 Ch. 581; 20 W. R. 650.)

(n) ROLLS v. ISAACS. [1881]

The district of Natal is a British colony with a separate government under a Governor appointed by the Crown, and a law has been passed by the legislative council, providing for the granting in the colony of patents for inventions:-Held, that the validity of letters patent under the great seal for licence to use an invention in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, would not be impeached by the fact if proved of prior use of the invention in Natal. (19 Ch. D. 268.) Brown v. Annandale 8 Cl. & F. 437, and Roebuck v. Stirling, Ib. 446 (n) distinguished.

(0) SAXBY v. THE GLOUCESTER WAGGON COMPANY. H. L. [1883]

The validity of the plaintiff's patent was disputed on the ground of want of novelty. The plaintiff admitted that all the material parts of his invention were to be found in two prior inventions, but tried to show that the combination of these two inventions required such skill and ingenuity as to entitle it to protection. There being evidence that any person of ordinary knowledge of the subject would be able to effect the combination without further experiment:-Held, that the finding of want of novelty could not be upset. (7 Q. B. D. 305; affirmed on appeal, W. N. 1882, 102; 2 Griff. 54; Good P. C. 417.)

(p) YOUNG v. ROSENTHAL. [1884]

It is not necessary in order to anticipate a patent that the old things should be exact and identical with the patent. Could the patentee that is not a bad test-stop the public from using them under his patent? If he could, and they had been used before, then his patent is bad, because he has no right to stop the public, who used it before. (Griff. 249; 1 O. R. 29.)

(9) BADISCHE ANILIN UND SODA FABRIK v. LEVINSTEIN. H. L. [1887]

The defendants alleged that though the particular substance obtained by the plaintiff's patented process, was previously unknown, yet that similar bodies arrived at by similar processes were well known, and that chemical analogy would at once indicate the supposed invention :-Held, that this only amounted to saying that the inventor only completed by one step the route to which chemical discoveries had been tending without his aid, and did not invalidate the patent. (12 App. C. 710.)

(r) GOSNELL v. BISHOP. C. A. [1888]

Patent for improvement in stretchers for trousers held not to have been anticipated. Where there has been a long unsatisfied

demand, and suddenly an article springs into existence and satisfies it, it may be inferred that ingenuity was required to surmount the obstacle which would seem to have existed. (5 O. R. 151.)

(8) EHRLICH v. IHLEE. C. A. [1888]

It was admitted that the parts of the plaintiff's invention were not new, but the claim was for a combination; 150,000 of the plaintiff's instruments had been sold, and there had been no such previous sale. The inference was irresistible that the instrument supplied a want, and this was cogent, though not conclusive evidence of novelty. (W. N. 1888, 50; 5 O. R. 437.)

(t) MORGAN v. WINDOVER. H. L. [1890]

Patent for a combination of C springs and elliptic springs in the front part of a carriage held not to be new. The Court of Appeal held (Coleridge, C.J., diss.) that the anticipation alleged was experimental. The House of Lords declined to decide that point, as they held that the invention was not subject-matter. (W. N. 1887, 143; 1888, 80; 3 T. L. R. 748; 5 O. R. 295; 7 0. R. 131.)

(1) DOWLING v. BILLINGTON. [1890]

A patent for weaving wire mattresses by a particular method, so as to distribute the strength evenly, was held by the Court of Appeal in Ireland not to be anticipated by prior methods which used the same machinery but did not obtain an even distribution of strength. (7 O. R. 191.)

Want of Novelty in a Part of an Invention.

(u) BRAMAH v. HARDCASTLE. N. P. [1789]

The patent was for a water-closet upon a new construction. It was objected that the patent, being taken for the whole watercloset, the arrangement of some of the parts only being new, was void. Kenyon, J., said: "Unlearned men look at the specification, and suppose everything new that is there. If the whole be not new, it is hanging terrors over them." The question for the jury is, whether the principle of the invention, and the means employed to effect the object to be obtained, are new; whether the shape is new or not is immaterial. (Holroyd, 81; 1 Carp. P. C. 168.)

(v) HILL v. THOMPSON. [1818]

Dallas, J. "If any part of the alleged discovery, being a material part, fail (the discovery in its entirety forming one entire consideration), the patent is altogether void.” (2 B. Moo. 457; 8 Taunt. 401; 1 Web. P. C. 249.)

(w) BRUNTON v. HAWKES. [1821]

Patent for "certain improvements in the construction, making, or manufacturing of ships' anchors, and windlasses, and chain

It

cables or moorings." It was proved at Nisi Prius, that the mode of manufacturing anchors described in the plaintiff's specification had never been applied before to ships' anchors; but had been applied to the adze-anchor, and the mushroomanchor. These anchors are used only for the purpose of mooring floating lights or vessels intended to be stationary, and are never taken on board. The jury having found a verdict for the plaintiff, the defendant obtained a rule nisi for a new trial, which the court afterwards made absolute. In his judgment, Abbott, C.J., said: "I think so much of the plaintiff's invention, as respects the anchor, is not new, and that the whole patent is, therefore, void. . . . A man cannot be entitled to a patent for uniting two things instead of three, where that union is effected in a mode well known and long practised for a similar purpose. seems to me, therefore, that there is no novelty in that part of the patent as affects the anchor, and, if the patent had been taken out for that alone, I should have had no hesitation in declaring that it was bad. Then, if there be no novelty in that part of the patent, can the plaintiff sustain his patent for the other part, as to the mooring chain? As at present advised I am inclined to think that the combination of a link of this particular form with the stay of the form which he uses, although the form of the link might have been known before, is so far new and beneficial as to sustain a patent for that part of the invention, if the patent had been taken out for that alone. But inasmuch as one of the things is not new, the question arises, whether any part can be sustained. It is quite clear that a patent granted by the Crown cannot extend beyond the consideration of the patent. The king could not, in consideration of a new invention in one article, grant a patent for that article and another. The question then is, whether, if a party applies for a patent, reciting that he has discovered improvements in three things, and obtains a patent for these three things, and in the result it turns out that there is no novelty in one of them, he can sustain his patent. It appears to me, that the case of Hill v. Thompson, which underwent great consideration in the Common Pleas, is decisive upon that question (4 B. & Ald. 549.). . . . The consideration of the patent is the improvement in the three articles, and not in one; for an improvement in only one of them would render the patent bad. The consideration is the entirety of the improvement of the three; and if it turns out there is no novelty in one of the improvements, the consideration fails in the whole, and the patentee is not entitled to the benefit of that other part of his invention." (Ib. 552.) (4 B. & Ald. 541; 1 Carp. P. C. 405.)

(x) LEWIS v. MARLING. [1829]

Parke, J.: "The objection to the patent, as explained by the specification, may be thus stated. The patent is for several things, one of which, then supposed to be useful, is now found not to be so; but there is no case deciding that a patent is on that ground void, although cases have gone the length of deciding, that if a