new valve was very useful and a great success. The combination itself formed the addition to public knowledge. See The Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Casswell, post, p. 381.

Old means, lintels, girders, and concrete or cement were so arranged that the concrete formed a self-supporting arch, which was a new result. See Fawcett v. Homan, post, p. 383. The parts here fulfilled functions different from those in old floors, hence the new floor was a new manufacture, natural forces of weight and reaction acting differently.

A machine for inserting "stop-press" news consisted in a combination of old mechanical parts. When done it appeared simple. Nothing like it had been attempted to supply a long-felt want. See Taylor v. Annand, post, p. 445. The test was the state of the art before as compared with it after the invention.

2. Combinations and Rearrangements of Processes constituting New Manufactures.

The invention consisted in waterproofing fabrics. By the old method fabrics were immersed in a solution of alum and soap. The novelty consisted in first immersing the fabrics in a solution of alum with some carbonate of lime, which neutralized the alum, and then a second immersion in a soap solution which gave the requisite oily quality to each fibre. The result left the fabric pervious to air : the old process waterproofed the surface only instead of the separate fibres. Helliwell v. Dearman, 1 Webs. 401 (n). The new properties of the result proved novelty of manufacture.

A rearrangement of old things and parts in a glass furnace so as to effect an improved process, by making former defects cure themselves, is a patentable combination. See Cannington v. Nuttall, post, p. 245. Here the currents of air performed new functions.

A gas-lamp was so constructed that the air was heated before reaching the flame. In a new arrangement the heated air was directed to a particular part of the flame. The lamp was so arranged that the glass was kept cool and from cracking by a cooling current of air. The new lamp was a great improvement. Wenham Gas Co. v. Champion Gas Co., post, p. 336.

Ingredients were treated in a way described in previous specifications. Chemists conversant with the subject would have known that the result would be an explosive. But experts testified that research and experiment were necessary to produce the powder made. There was no evidence that chemists would have foreseen that the result would possess the qualities necessary for a useful powder. This was a new manufacture of great ingenuity. See The Lancashire Explosives Co. v. The Roburite, &c., Co., post, p. 394.

3. Applications of Old Things to New Purposes involving Sufficient Ingenuity to constitute Invention.

Tubular braided wire was old, and had been used for pillows, handles, etc. A method of clamping it to make a new article, viz. a lady's bustle, which was both novel and useful, was held to amount to a patentable invention. See Thomson v. American Braided Wire Co., post, p. 319.

A certain arrangement for automatically keeping pontoons level was applied to a gas-holder to keep it level without the aid of pillars above ground. The forces to be considered in each case were different. See Gadd v. Mayor of Manchester, post, p. 351. Here the older application was in a different branch of engineering. Paper tubes had been used in dry spinning of cotton, wools, etc. They were slipped on rigid pirns which were attached to the spindles. The paper tubes and yarns wound thereon (i.e, "cops ") were re moved from the pirns and used in shuttles for weaving. In wet spinning of flax rigid pirns were used on which the spun flax was wound, both were removed from the spindles and dried. The flax became slack on the pirns, which had to be extended by screws. The invention consisted in applying paper tubes to wet spinning. All were removed from the spindles as before, the pirn preventing the tube from collapsing during the drying process. That process shrank the pirns and made them removable from the tubes then able to maintain the flax in situ. Pirrie v. York Street Flax Spinning Co., 11 R. P. C. 429. The use of the tubes was different in the new mode; the parts discharged different functions; a new difficulty had to be met.

An old device for allowing a shaft to rotate in one direction and not in the other was applied in a hoist for raising and lowering heavy bodies. This application constituted a patentable invention of the particular form of hoist produced, that particular mode of application being new. Morris & Bastert v. Young, post, p. 371.

4. Selections from Known Things or Processes amounting to Patentable Inventions.

Earlier processes (which were disclaimed) depended on the use of "oxides of iron" in gas purification. Only one kind, the hydrated ferric oxide, would do. The discovery of this fact and the method of its application constitute a patentable invention. See Hills v. London Gas Light and Coke Co., post, p. 208. Ascertaining, by laborious experiment, a particular class of material

amongst many, and of particular processes amongst many, for the production of paraffin oil, thereby creating a useful public trade, is

5.

a "manufacture" and "invention." Something had, at the date of the patent, to be ascertained to render the discovery of paraffin oils useful to the public. Young v. Fernie, 10 L. T. N. S. 861; 33 L. J. Ch. 192.

Combinations of Old Elements not amounting to Patentable Inventions. A combination of a grooved or roughened handle (an old contrivance) with a knob at the end (formerly used in hammers) in a tennisracquet, is a mere alteration of old things in a known way. Slazenger v. Feltham, 6 R. P. C. 234.

In a known class of mincing-machines a screw arrangement of blades performed the double function of pressing the meat against knives and forcing it forwards slowly into the skins. In another class a screw forced the meat against a perforated plate, where it was cut by revolving knives mounted on the same shaft as the screw, but the screw did not go further than the plate. A combination, in which the screw on same shaft was continued to the other side of the plate, so as to press the meat into the skins as in the first class of machines, proved to be a very useful machine, but there was no difficulty to be overcome in so placing the old parts together, hence no patentable invention. Williams v. Nye, 7 R. P. C. 62. The parts so arranged performed the same respective functions as in the older machines. Improvements in reels for holding fabrics consisted of a combination of the reel or frame with hooks made in a particular way. The new articles were largely used in preference to the old. Held, that there was no sufficient ingenuity shown, although there was an improved result. Longbottom v. Shaw, post, p. 332.

Pince-nez, or double eyeglasses, constituted a combination of old parts. The new glasses had the additional feature of the added part. The parts performed together the same functions they did before. No new quality was given to the glasses by the addition, and there was no difficulty in making the combination. See Wood v. Raphael, post, p. 398. There were here no new results due to the combining of the old elements.

6. New Modes of Manufacture falling short of Patentable Inventions. Improvements in felt handles for bicycles, etc., consisted in grooving sheet felt, making it flexible so as to bend round the handles. The old method consisted in boring out solid blocks of felt. Some of these had been grooved on the outside. There was great utility and a large sale. See Cooper v. Baedeker, post, p. 431.

Alleged improvements in attaching ferrules which were of little or no utility were held not to constitute invention in Wilson Bros. Bobbin Co. v. Wilson & Co., post, p. 463.

7. New Uses of Old Means and Processes not constituting Patentable

Inventions.

A method of forming cases of rush or straw for the protection of bottles consisted in the use of a mandril shaped like a bottle. The use of mandrils for other and similar purposes was well known. This is not an "invention." Patent Bottle Envelope Co. v. Seymer, 28 L. J. C. P. 22. This is simply a case of " analogous use." A specification described strengthening and polishing linen and cotton yarns by friction-brushes. The patentee of a subsequent alleged invention described in his specification the same process applied to yarns of wool, hair, etc. This is not a "new manufacture," but only the application of a known process to new material. Brooke v. Aston, 28 L. J. Q. B. 175 (followed in Penn v. Bibby, L. R. 2 Ch. Ap. 135; Rushton v. Crawley, L. R. 10 Eq. Ca. 529; Ticklepenny v. A. and N. Co-op. Soc., 5 R. P. C. 408; Gadd v. Mayor of Manchester, 9 R. P. C. 524, and other cases).

Fish-plates for railways formerly had the heads of bolts secured from turning by being squared and sunk in square holes. Grooving the plate to effect this by the sides of the grooves holding the opposite sides of bolt-heads constituted the novelty. Channelled iron had been used similarly on bridges. This is the mere application of a known device to an analogous purpose, not amounting to a patentable invention. See Harwood v. G. N. Ry. Co., post, p. 204. Facts compared and last case followed in Horton v. Mabon, post, p. 221. An alleged invention consisted in using old electrical elements, viz.

alternating dynamo, high-tension currents in the mains, and transformers to produce a new result of drawing off low-tension currents for lighting purposes. See Gaulard & Gibbs' Patent, post, p. 329. Here there had been no previous demand for such a combination.

8. New Uses that are not "Manufactures."

A new mode of using a machine already known, by altering the relative distances of its parts is not patentable. Before maceration and wet-spinning of flax were introduced machines were adjusted according to the length of fibre, in cotton not over 1 inches, in flax 14 to 36 inches. Kay invented new machinery for preparing flax by maceration, and made "wet-spinning" successful. Part of his claim was for " new machinery" for spinning flax. This new machinery was simply the old rearranged so that the retaining and drawing rollers were placed 2 inches apart instead of the old distance of 14 inches or more. This is only a new mode of using the old machine, and not a new machine. Kay v. Marshall, 5 Bing. N. C. 492. (Compare Moser v. Marsden, noted ante, p. 41,

and post, p. 374). In this case the "manufacture" claimed in the specification was the machine, not a process. See post, p. 190. The discovery that by using machinery in a particular way a new pattern and lustre could be produced on embossed fabrics is not the discovery of a new manufacture. See Ralston v. Smith, post, p. 230. See Partington and others v. The Hartlepool Pulp Co., noted ante, p. 22. A more skilled and experienced application of old known tools to a particular purpose, viz. cutting necktie linings out of swansdown, is not a patentable invention. See Dredge v. Parnell, post, p. 420. A transmitting printing sheet made of special paper and prepared by waxing was claimed for use in a typewriter. Waxing paper was known before. The claims were wider than for the mere mode of preparing the paper. The patent was invalid. See Dick v. Ellams' Duplicator Co., post, p. 430.

It must be remembered that it is the invention as claimed that is to be considered in all cases. For the extent of the monopoly depends on the claims,1 and the consideration of validity, as regards prior knowledge, depends ultimately (ante, p. 19) on the extent to which the monopoly affects the public. The importance of the actual claim is seen in the two following illustrations:

9. Results only in Question, insufficiency of Invention in the Results. The invention was one for casting a tubular boiler (such as is used in hothouses) in one piece. It was "causing the upright tubes and the lower hollow ring to be all cast at one time, and thus to form one casting." The hollow ring joined the upright tubes together at their lower ends. The claim was for "casting a boiler such as described in one piece." Boilers had previously been cast in parts: tubes, hollow rings, &c., and subsequently cemented together. Held, that there was no subject-matter, the whole thing being only a difficult piece of casting (32 L. J. C. P. 9). It might have been otherwise had the claim been confined to an "improved mode of casting" the boiler, instead of one for the boiler itself cast in one piece (32 L. J. C. P. 291). Ormson v. Clarke, 32 L. J. C. P. 8, 291. (Followed in Newsum v. Mann, 7 R. P. C. 307.)

A new eyelet coated with celluloid for boots was claimed, but not the mode of manufacture. It was an improved eyelet and useful, but the finished article as regards the attachment of the celluloid was analogous to hooks used previously. See Rickmann v. Thierry, post, p. 391.

See also R. v. Else, post, p. 180.

1 Parkes v. Stevens, L. R. Ch. Ap. 38, 39; Hinks v. Safety, &c., 4 Ch. D. 612; Gibson v. Brand, 11 L. J. C. P. 162.