(j) BOOTH v. KENNARD. [1856]

Patent for "improvements in the manufacture of gas." patentee, in his specification, said: "Hitherto in manufacturing gas from oils, oily or resinous matter, it has been usual to go through the costly process of obtaining the oils, &c., from seeds and other substances, and to use the same in a fluid or semifluid state Now, my invention consists in the direct use of seeds, leaves, flowers, branches, nuts, fruits, and other substances, and matters containing oil or oily or resinous matter, or other matter useful in the manufacture of vegetable gas. I claim for making gas direct from seeds and matters herein named, instead of making it from oils, resins, and gums, previously extracted from such substances: "-Held, that assuming the invention to be new, it was a good subject-matter for a patent. (1 Hurl. & N. 527; 26 L. J., Ex. 23; 3 Jur., N. S. 21.) The patent was afterwards set aside for want of novelty. (2 Hurl. & N. 84; 26 L. J., Ex. 305.)

(k) BEWLEY. HANCOCK. [1856]

Lord Cranworth: "A discovery that the mixture of two or more simple substances, in certain definite proportions, will form a compound substance valuable for medical or other qualities, would afford a good ground for a patent. A discovery of some machinery, whereby such a mixture may be more quickly or more effectually accomplished, might be the foundation of another patent." (6 De G., M. & G. 402.)

(1) BOVILL v. PIMM. [1856]

Where the subject of an invention is not new, any patent taken out for a method of performing the operation is substantially confined to that method, and cannot be extended to other methods obviously different, because they involve some common principle applied to the common object, and may apparently be described by the same general phrase. (11 Exch. 739.)

(m) BOVILL v. KEYWORTH. [1857]

If the specification of a patent does not point out the mode by which a patented process is to be performed, so as to accomplish the object in view, it will be a statement of principle only, and the patent will be invalid. (7 E. &. B. 735.)

(n) HIGGS v. GOODWIN. [1858]

The invention for which the patent was granted was "treating chemically the collected contents of sewers and drains in cities, towns, and villages, so that the same may be applicable to agricultural and other useful purposes." In the specification the patentee said: "For the purpose of precipitating the animal and vegetable matter contained in the sewage water, I prefer to employ hydrate of lime, commonly termed 'slacked lime.' What I claim as my invention is, the precipitation of animal and

vegetable matter from sewage water by means of the chemical agent herein before described." Lord Campbell, C.J., said: It seems to me that the invention of the plaintiff is a subject for a patent, as the invention was for producing an article of commercial profit." (El. Bl. & El. 529; 5 Jur., N. S. 97; 27 L. J., Q. B. 421.)

(0) HILLS v. LONDON GAS LIGHT COMPANY, [1860]

An invention consisted in the purification of coal gas by employing the hydrated oxides of iron to remove the sulphuretted hydrogen from the gas. On an action for the infringement of a patent for this invention, it was contended by the defendants that this was not the subject of a patent. Baron Bramwell, delivering the judgment of the Court, said: "If a man were to say I claim the use of hydrated oxide of iron for the purification of coal gas,' without saying how it is to be applied, it is possible the objection might be well founded; but here the plaintiff says, I claim it in the manufacture of gas in the way I have described,' and he shows how it may be used. Therefore this objection fails." (5 Hurl. & N. 312; 29 L. J., Ex. 409.)

(p) YOUNG v. FERNIE. [1864]

Vice-Chancellor Sir John Stuart said: "What the law looks to is the inventor and discoverer who finds out and introduces a manufacture which supplies the market for useful and economical purposes with an article which was previously little more than the ornament of a museum. It has been established to my satisfaction, by the evidence in this cause, that the plaintiff Young is an inventor of this class, and that his patent is entitled to the protection of the law. I find that he has ascertained, by a course of laborious experiments, a particular class of materials among many, and a particular process among many, which has enabled him to create and introduce to the public a useful manufacture, which amply supplies the market with that which, until the use of the materials and process, and temperature indicated by him, had never been supplied for commercial purposes. At the date of his patent something remained to be ascertained, which was necessary for the useful application of the chemical discovery of paraffine, and paraffine oils. This brings it within the principle stated by the Lord Chancellor in the late case of Hills v. Evans. The manufacture, with the materials and process indicated by him, according to the sense in which I understand the word manufacture' to be used in the statute, was a new manufacture, not in use at the date of his patent." (4 Giff. 611; 10 Jur., N. S. 936; 12 W. R. 903; 10 L. T. Rep., N. S. 865.)

(1) CURTIS v. PLATT. [1864]

Where an invention consists of the discovery of particular means for attaining a result, which result is already perfectly well known, the invention is only for the means; and the invention of one set of particular means does not interfere with the invention of

another set of means to the same end, provided that the two sets of means are distinct, and the latter does not involve a colourable imitation of the former, or an incorporation of the former, with additions. (11 L. T. Rep., N. S. 245; 3 Ch. D. 138 (n).)

(r) NEWALL v. ELLIOTT. [1864]

The plaintiff obtained a patent for "improvements in apparatus employed in laying down submarine electric telegraph wires," which he effected by a combination of a wire or cable round a cone of supports, placed cylindrically outside the coil, and the use of rings in combination with them :-Held, to be a good subject for a patent. (10 Jur., N. S. 954; 13 W. R. 11; 10 L. T. Rep., N. S. 792.)

Bramwell, B., said: "Two other matters remain. One is, the point that was pressed by Mr. Cleasby, but which I confess I have considerable difficulty in understanding, that this is not the subject of a patent, because the thing is not prepared and vendible-because, for the convenience of buyer and seller, instead of being ready made and afterwards fitted up in the ship, it is fitted into the ship by the owner of the ship, or the user of the ship, when he uses it. I confess I am unable to understand that. It seems to me to be an argument equally good to say that you' could not have a patent for a smoke-jack, because the size of the smoke-jack depends upon the size of the chimney, and because it is more convenient that it should be put up by a country smith." (10 Jur., N. S. 959.)

(8) SIMPSON v. HOLLIDAY. H. L. [1866]

Patent for "improvements in the preparation of red and purple dyes." The specification thus declares the nature of the invention: "I mix aniline with dry arsenic acid, and allow the mixture to stand for some time; or I accelerate the operation by heating it to, or near to, its boiling point, until it assumes a rich purple colour." The patentee claimed " the manufacture or preparation of red and purple dyes, by treating aniline dyes with arsenic acid, as hereinbefore described." Chelmsford, L.C., said: "There is nothing upon the face of the specification to show that the invention described is not in every part of it the subject of a patent." (L. R., 1 H. L. 315; 35 L. J., Ch. 811.)

(t) BAILEY v. ROBERTON. H. L. [1878]

A patent may be obtained for the use of a solution of one or more chemical substances for a particular purpose, without confining the claim to any particular mode of use or application. (Per Lord Cairns, L.C., 3 App. Cas. 1064; and per Lord Blackburn, 1b. 1077.)

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

Where a patent is taken out for a process for arriving at a known result, any other person may take out a patent for another process,

or may use another process, without any infringement of the first patent. But where a patent is taken out for a new result, and there is one process in the patent which is effectual for the purpose of arriving at that new result at the time when the patent is taken out, the patentee is entitled to protection against all other processes for the same result. It is no objection to a patent to say that the inventor only completed by one step the route to which chemical discoveries had been tending without his aid. (24 Ch. D. 171; 12 App. C. 710.)

(v) BADISCHE ANILIN UND SODA FABRIK v. DAWSON. [1889]

In an action for infringement of a patent for the preparation of yellow colouring matters soluble in water and suitable for dyes, it was shown that dinitronaphthol, which was known as Manchester yellow, had long been in use, but that it was not very soluble in water. In trying to correct this and other defects the patentee discovered that by treating alpha naphthol with additional sulphuric acid, an acid was obtained which, when treated with nitric acid, retained one or more of its sulpho groups. This product was completely new, and no one had ever discovered before how to procure a sulpho acid of alpha naphthol which kept one or more of its sulpho groups under the action of nitric acid. The mode of preparation was also new, and it was held, by Charles, J., that the mode of preparation and production was just as much subjectmatter of a patent as the production of the sulpho acids of oxyazonaphthaline, which had already been held to be good subject-matter. (6 O. R. 387.)

Addition to a known Machine or Process.

(w) MORRIS v. BRANSON. N. P. [1776]

An addition made to an old machine is a good subject-matter for a patent. If it were the law that there could be no patent for an addition, it would go to repeal almost every patent that was ever granted. (Bull. N. P. 76; 1 Carp. P. C. 30; 1 Web. P. C. 51.)

(x) R. v. ARKWRIGHT. Sci. Fac. [1785]

Buller, J., in addressing the jury, said: "In the case of an invention, many parts of a machine may have been known before, yet if there be anything material and new, which is an improvement of the trade, that will be sufficient to support a patent; but whether it must be for the new addition only, or for the whole machine, would be another question." (1 Web. P. C. 71.)

(y) BOULTON v. BULL. [1795]

Buller, J., said: "That a patent for an addition or improvement may be maintained, is a point which has never been directly decided; and Bircot's case, 3 Inst. 184, is an express authority against it, which case was decided in the Exchequer Chamber. What were the particular facts of that case we are not informed, and there seems to me to be more quaintness than solidity in the

reason assigned, which is, that it was to put but a new button to an old coat, and it is much easier to add than to invent. If the button were new, I do not feel the weight of the objection that the coat on which the button was to be put, was old. But in truth, arts and sciences at that period were at so low an ebb, in comparison with that point to which they have been since advanced, and the effect and utility of improvements so little known, that I do not think that case ought to preclude the question. In later times, whenever the point has arisen, the inclination of the Court has been in favour of the patent for the improvement, and the parties have acquiesced, where the objection might have been brought directly before the Court. In Morris v. Branson, which was tried at the sittings after Easter term 1776, the patent was for making oilet holes, or net-work in silk, thread, cotton or worsted; and the defendant objected that it was not a new invention, it being only an addition to the old stocking-frame. Lord Mansfield said: After one of the former trials on this patent, I received a very sensible letter from one of the gentlemen who was upon the jury, on the subject whether on principles of public policy, there could be a patent for an addition only. I paid great attention to it, and mentioned it to all the judges. If the general point of law, viz., that there can be no patent for an addition, be with the defendant, that is open upon the record, and he may move in arrest of judgment. But that objection would go to repeal almost every patent that was ever granted.' There was a verdict for the plaintiff, with 500l. damages, and no motion was made in arrest of judgment. Though his lordship did not mention what were the opinions of the judges, or give any direct opinion himself, yet we may safely collect that he thought, on great consideration, the patent was good, and the defendant's counsel, though they had made the objection at the trial, did not afterwards persist in it. Since that time, it has been the generally received opinion in Westminster Hall, that a patent for an addition is good. But then it must be for the addition only, and not for the old machine too. In Jessop's case, as quoted by my brother Adair, the patent was held to be void because it extended to the whole watch, and the invention was of a particular movement only." (2 H. Bl. 489.)

(z) HORNBLOWER v. BOULTON. [1799]

Grose, J.: "A doubt is entertained, whether there can be a patent for an addition to an old manufacture. This doubt rests altogether upon Bircot's case, 3 Inst. 184; and if that were to be considered as law at this day, it would set aside many patents for very ingenious inventions, in cases where the additions to manufactures before existing are much more valuable than the original manufactures themselves. I shall content myself with referring to what Lord Chief Justice Eyre said in this cause, in the Court of Common Pleas, in answer to this passage, and to the case of Morris v. Branson, cited by my Brother Buller upon the same point. If indeed a patent could not be granted for an addition, it would be depriving the public of one of the best benefits of the statute of