subject-matter for letters patent according to the provisions of the above section (k), and the judicial decisions interpreting it.

useful

manufac

granted for a principle.

An examination of these cases establishes the New and following conclusions: The "invention" must be a m new and useful manufacture; the word manufacture" meaning either the method of production No patent or the article produced (1). Thus there can be no patent for a principle, for it is the result of discovery, not invention; and until the principle is applied there can be no manufacture (m). Letters But for patent can then be legally granted for the mode application. of carrying it into effect (n). Thus Watt's patent was not granted for the discovery of the prin- patent. ciple that the condensation of steam in a vessel separate from the steam cylinder effected a saving of fuel, but for the mode of carrying this principle into practice, which, when effected,

(k) For these provisions and comments of Sir Edward Coke respecting them, see p. 94.

(1) Boulton v. Bull, Watt's Patent, 2 H. Bl. 479.

(m) Hornblower v. Boulton, Dav. P. C. 221; The King v. Wheeler, 2 B. & Ald. 349; Jupe v. Pratt, 1 Webs. P. C. 145; Neilson v. Harford, 1 Webs. P. C. 295.

2;

(n) Househill Company v. Neilson, 1 Webs. P. C. 552, 592 Boulton v. Bull, 2 H. Bl. 463 ; Neilson v. Harford, 1 Webs. P. C. 342, per B. Alderson; Minter v. Wells, 1 Webs. P. C. 134; Newton v. Vaucher, 21 L. J. Ex. 305; 6 Ex. 859; The Electric Telegraph Company v. Brett, 10 C. B. 838; Hills v. The London Gas Light and Coke Company, 5 H. & N. 369; Bewley v. Handcock, 6 De G. M. & G. 403.

mode of

Watt's

"Otto"

patent.

produced the modern steam engine-a new manufacture. This was clearly expressed in the gas case of the "Otto" gas engine by Sir G. Jessel in the following words: "If you have a new principle or a new idea as regards any art or manufacture, and then show a mode of carrying that into practice, you may patent that, though you could not patent the idea alone; and very likely could not patent the machine alone, because the machine alone would not be new (0).

Specification for this

In drawing a specification of this class of inclass of in- vention the best method is to state the principle,

vention.

Process.

and then the manner of application. For instance, in Hill's patent for the purification of gas, the principle that sulphuretted hydrogen was absorbed by hydrated oxides was stated, and then followed a description of the manner of effecting the purification of gas therefrom. The claim for the manufacture of gas in the described was

therefore held good (p).

manner

Processes.

In many of the early reports of cases on patents (q) there are expressions of opinion that a process might

(0) Otto v. Linford, 46 L. T. (N. S.) 35.

(p) Hills V. The London Gas Light Company, 5 H. & N. 369.

(q) Boulton & Watt v. Bull, 2 H. Bl. 463; The King v. Wheeler, 2 B. & Ald. 345; Hall v. Jarvis, 1 Webs. P. R. 100; Hill v. Thompson, 1 Webs. P. R. 237; Morgan v. Seaward, 2 M. & W. 544; Gibson v. Brand, 4 M. & G. 179.

and

new, better, or cheaper.

be the subject of a patent privilege; but that this was so was not fully established till the case of Crane v. Price (r), which concerned a patent for a process of smelting iron by means of a hot-air blast. Chemical Processes are the result of the application of the mechanical. sciences of mechanics and chemistry to the arts; but there can seldom be a purely chemical process, for chemical substances, in order to act on each other, must be brought into intimate relationship, and the difficulty of duly effecting this necessitates a large amount of mechanical invention. If by means of Must be the process a new, better, or cheaper article is produced, it may be the subject-matter for valid letters patent (s). The patent may be for the article produced by the process if the article is not new, for a new method of producing an old article, as was decided in the case of Stevens v. Keating, is a new manufacture (t). When letters patent Process and have been obtained for a new result, and the duct. patent describes a process of arriving at that result which is effectual at the date of the patent, the patentee is entitled to protection against all other processes; it is an infringement to adopt any other process for the purpose of arriving at that result (u).

(r) 4 M. & G. 580.

(8) Gibson v. Brand, 4 M. & G. 602, 1 Webs. P. R. 409; Murray v. Clayton, L. R. 7 Ch. 584.

(t) 2 Webs. P. R. 182; Bush v. Fox, Macr. P. C. 176; Ralston v. Smith, 11 H. L. C. 223.

(u) Bädische Anilin Fabrik v. Levenstein, 48 L.T.(N.S.) 822.

new pro

part of process.

Omission of A patent for an invention which consists in the omission of part or parts of a process will be supported (v), and so will a process by which old materials can be used again (w), or which makes a chemical curiosity available for practical purposes (a).

Chemical curiosity.

Combinations.

substantial

improve

ment.

Combinations.

The decisions as to patents for combinations are in effect similar, if not identical with those already stated as to processes. The combination must Must be a result in a substantial improvement, and be attended with results of novelty and utility to the public, by the adoption of new parts or new arrangements of the parts (y); and care must be taken only to claim the combination, unless a part or parts of the combination be novel, in which case a separate claim may be made (z). If three patents are taken

(v) Minter v. Mower, 6 A. & E. 1 Webs. P. R. 139; Russell v. Cowley, 1 Webs. P. R. 463; Wellington v. Dale, 7 Exch. 888.

(w) Hills v. Liverpool Gas Company, 9 Jur. (N. S.) 140; Steiner v. Heald, 6 Exch. 607.

(a) Sellers v. Dickinson, 5 Exch. 326; Young v. Fernie, 4 Giff. 597,

(y) Lister v. Leather, 8 E. & B. 1004; Huddart v. Grimshaw, Dav. P. C. 267; Newall v. Elliot, 10 Jur. (N. S.) 954; Murray v. Clayton, L. R. 7 Ch. 570; Foxwell v. Bostock, 12 W. R. 725; Cannington v. Nuttall, L. R. 5 H. L. 205; Spencer v. Jack, 3 De G. J. & S. 346; Bovill v. Keyworth, 7 E. & B. 725 ; Cropper v. Smith, W. N. 1883, p. 49.

(z) Clark v. Adie, 2 App. Cas. 321.

out for a combination, of which the third consists in merely such a combination of improvements introduced by the other two as any person of ordinary knowledge might effect without further experiment or further information than that contained in the prior specifications, the letters patent will be held void (a). But where a slight alteration turns that which was practically useless into a useful and important article of commerce, though the amount of the invention be small, yet, because of the greatness of the results, the patent will be supported (b).

ments on

prior

Of course, if the improvement is on a valid Improveexisting patent, the patent for the improvement patents. does not give the right to use the prior patent, the consent of the owner of which must be obtained until his term has expired (c). In Parks v. Stevens, James (V.-C.) sums up the law on this point when commenting on the case of Lister v. Leather: "The cases establish that a valid patent for an entire combination for a process gives protection to each part thereof that is new and material for that process; which is really nothing more than stating,

(a) Saxby v. The Gloucester Waggon Company, 7 Q. B. D. 305.

(b) Hinks v. The Safety Lighting Company, 4 Ch. D. 616.

(c) Lister v. Leather, 8 E. & B. 1017; Saxby v. Clunes, 43 L. J. Ex. 228; White v. Fenn, 15 W. R. 348; Grant of Compulsory Licenses, s. 22.