purpose of invention by means of specific directions as to the use of such devices as levers, screws, pulleys, &c. In the domain of physics the principles consist of natural phenomena and laws such as those pertaining to the ether and its vibrations, light and actinic rays, electric and magnetic waves, the laws governing the expansion of metals, the creation and transmission of sound, &c., and from these result as inventions such arts and manufactures as photography, the machines used in wireless telegraphy, balance-wheels of chronometers, telephones, &c. In chemical inventions the laws governing the constitution of bodies and their chemical and physical properties are not patentable, but give rise to all kinds of manufactures, e.g. beverages, dyes, explosive powders, &c. It is most important always to distinguish between the manufacture which constitutes the invention patented and the principles underlying it. A true appreciation of the latter is frequently necessary to understand in what the invention described and claimed really consists. The cases of Goddard v. Lyon (post, p. 358) and Gormully v. N. B. Rubber Co. (post, p. 414) are striking instances of this; the former has already been alluded to, and the latter consisted of a method of retaining the cover of a pneumatic tyre in its place in the rim by means of a grip produced by the action of the air and roadpressure on a certain arrangement of tubes and flanges. Indeed, in many cases it is absolutely necessary to inquire into and distinguish the principles in order to understand the essence of the invention under consideration.1 Distinction between Inventions and their Objects. As a "manufacture" must be distinguished from a principle on the one hand, so it must be from an ultimate result or use on the other. A manufacture to be a patentable invention must consist in the application of principles, or the mode of carrying them into effect (classed as II. above), or the resulting substances or things of a vendible nature, which are produced by such application or use of principles (classed as III. above). One must here distinguish between the manufacture itself and the ultimate purpose or object 1 Thomson v. Moore, 6 R. P. C. 450, 1. 37. it is intended to attain. The immediate purpose, object, or result may be the manufacture itself, such as a new dye substance, or a simpler form of a machine, and the ultimate purpose, or object, be something the manufacture is intended to attain, such as a new colour, or the saving of time by more rapid working of machine. The manufacture that constitutes invention does not include the object to be attained by the invention, that is to say, all the resulting effects.1 "2 The mere application of an old thing to a new purpose is not patentable, because the novel application is not a "manufacture,' unless it amount to a new machine or mode of production, i.e. a new manufacture. For instance, the discovery that an old wheel had certain advantages and the explanation of such does not constitute a manufacture. But where the manufacture is a process or method (II. above), it may consist in the use of certain old things or processes. In the preceding classification and elementary examples given ante, p. 7, the ultimate results, objects, or uses are marked IV.; those are not manufactures. The distinction here made may be further illustrated from actual cases : Illustrations of Results as distinguished from Manufactures. The saving of fuel and steam effected by Watts' invention is not included in his monopoly, only those means by which such saving is effected. The result of power to resist fire effected by Hartley's patent is not included in his monopoly. See ante, p. 9. A patent was granted for an expanding table of circular or oval form of which parts could be moved outwards radially, and sectors inserted. The manufacture there protected was the device by which the result was accomplished, and did not extend to include the same result achieved by other means. Jupe v. Pratt, 1 Webs. 143 (as explained by Cotton, L.J., in Automatic Weighing Machine v. Knight, 6 R. P. C. 304). An invention consisted of a machine for clipping horses; by means of it the process of clipping could be more conveniently performed. The manufacture protected by the patent did not include the mode 1 See Neilson v. Harford, 1 Webs. 355; Curtis v. Platt (per Wood, V.C.), post, p. 239: Goddard v. Lyon (per Lord Halsbury, L.C.), 11 R. P. C. 358, l. 50; Moser v. Marsden (per Lord Watson), post, p. 376. 2 Reg. v. Cutler & Ors, Mac. P. C. 134; Bush v. Fox, Mac. P. C. 164, 176 (approved by the House of Lords, 5 H. L. Ca. 713). 3 Tetley v. Easton, 2 C. B. N. S. 739. of clipping, but only the machine itself. Clark v. Adie (No. 1) (as explained in Vorwerk v. Evans), post, pp. 259, 263. An invention consisted of a method of enlarging boiler-tubes by rolling. A tool consisting of three cylindrical rollers capable of being forced out by a central conical roller or plug enlarged the end of the tubes, the inner surface of the tube being rolled slightly conical. The manufacture was the device and the result the enlarging of the tube. The same result (i.e. conical extension of the tube by rolling) was produced by other means which were not the same manufacture. Dudgeon v. Thomson, 3 App. Ca. 34, post, p. 263. A patent was granted for "improvements in weighing-machines." These consisted in certain arrangements of mechanism which enabled a person to ascertain his weight by standing on a platform and putting a penny in a slot whereby an indicator on a dial showed his weight. These results are not included in the manufacture patented, which consisted of the machine alone, i.e. the means whereby the result was attained. Automatic Weighing Machine Co. v. Knight, 6 R. P. C. 297. A new ticket-punch was patented in which the insertion of a ticket unlocked the mechanism. On pushing a rod further the punching was effected, also the registering of the punching and the ringing of a bell. These results were no part of the manufacture for which the monopoly was granted, and others might effect the same results by different mechanism in which the ticket when inserted itself formed part of the mechanism. Ticket-Punch Register Co. v. Colley's Patents, 12 R. P. C. 171, 185. The same invention may be sometimes looked at from more than one point of view. For instance, Watts' device of the separate condenser in the steam-engine was described in the specification and claimed as a "method for reducing the consumption of fuel" in fire-engines; it might have been described as "an improved engine" or as "improvements in engines." In every case, the inventor should, before applying for a patent, have a clear idea as to what is the manufacture he has devised, whether it be a process or vendible article or both. Illustration. Kay discovered that maceration of flax broke up the fibre, and invented the process of wet-spinning of flax, but he did not patent the process, but claimed only the machinery. In claiming the use of old machinery adjusted for spinning flax as "improved" machinery he only claimed an old use and not the new process. His patent was invalid. Kay v. Marshall, post, p. 190. Patents for Improvements. The development of arts and manufactures is a gradual one. Nearly every invention is a step in advance of what was the common knowledge of skilled persons. It was held at an early date that an improvement in an existing manufacture might be the subject of a patent for a "new" manufacture under the Statute of Monopolies. Patents may therefore be obtained for improvements in existing manufactures, both in processes and in vendible articles, and although the manufacture so improved is itself the subject-matter of an existing patent,1 the ultimate customer or user paying royalties to both inventors in an increased price. Illustrations of Improvements. To obviate the necessity of altering the length of a pendulum to correct for elongation or shortening due to a rise or fall in temperature, a method was devised by which the property of unequal expansion of metals was made use of. The bob of the pendulum was sus pended from a "gridiron" arrangement, and was lifted by the expansion of some rods of metal, thus counteracting the lengthening due to the expansion of the main rod. In balance-wheels the principle of unequal expansion of metals is used for the same object. The effect of the lengthening of the radii of the wheel on the time of oscillation is counteracted by constructing the rim in segments, with the more expansible metal outside; on expansion of the wheel "warping" ensues, thereby bending the masses of the segments more towards the centre. In both these cases the same principles are used for the same object, but in a different manner. The improvements are therefore different inventions. No matter how great the improvement may be from a commercial point of view, it must come within the term "manufacture" as used in Patent Law. "It is not every useful discovery that can be made the subject of a patent, but you must show that the discovery can be brought within a fair extension of the words, 'a new manufacture.' An improvement must be capable of being described and specified.3 It is a fallacy to assume that every 1 Crane v. Price, post, p. 197; Fox, ex parte, 1 V. & B. 67; 1 Webs. 431 (~). improvement in a known patentable article is necessarily of itself a patentable improvement.1 In the above illustrations of the compensating pendulum and balancewheel it will be seen that the improved articles are different from the old; they are different articles, and possess a new property, viz. that of automatic correction. They are therefore distinct manufactures. Where the invention constitutes a "new manufacture" in the popular sense of the term, that is, when it gives rise to a new industry or trade, it is usually termed a "pioneer" invention. In modern times these usually consist of applications of newly discovered principles, or laws, of nature; e.g. the incandescent electric lamp, incandescent gas mantles, the first coal-tar dyes, &c. A pioneer invention is, in the nature of things, a comparatively wide one, and a patent for such may control those for improvements, so that the users of the latter are liable to two royalties. Owing to the subdivision of labour and manufactures, what is an improvement in one manufacture may itself give rise to a separate industry. Master Patents. Where improvements are made in manufactures for which patents have already been granted, and which come within their claims, the earlier patents are termed "Master" or "Governing Patents," and the patents granted for the later inventions "Patents for Improvements." But a patent for an improvement in an existing invention say a complicated machine-may be sufficiently wide to include various improvements thereon, and in that case would be a "master patent" as well as a "patent for an improvement." The case of Boyd v. Horrocks (too complicated for insertion here) may be referred to as an illustration. See report of that case in the House of Lords, 9 R. P. C. 77. Hence it will be seen that the term "master patent" is a relative one. Inventions cannot be distinctly classified as "pioneer" or "improvements," although they are frequently so described as constituting two loosely defined classes. 1 Kynochs v. Webb, 17 R. P. C. 100, per Lord Halsbury, L.C., p. 107 (post, p. 428), and Lord Davey, p. 115 (post, p. 430). |