« PreviousContinue »
of two known in.
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 The combination whereby such mixture may be more quickly or effectually accomplished might be the foundation for another patent."
A combination of two known inventions requiring such an The combination amount of skill and ingenuity as to entitle it to the protec- ventions or mation of an exclusive grant is the subject of a patent. Saxby v. Gloucester Waggon Co., L.R. 7 Q.B.D. 312
7 (1881). In Curtis v. Platt, 11 L.T. N.S. 249 (1864),
Where an inventor of improvements applicable to certain machines known as self-acting mules or turners, which were formerly the subject of two patents, and a second inventor having taken the same elements of construction, produced a new combination arriving at the same result, but by a process of thought which was not derived from the other patent, both patents were held good, and the second
no infringement of the first; Lord Westbury saying in his judgment: “You have the same end produced by different means, and in the one means and in the other means there are the same elements or something of the same elements which are common to both ; but it is impossible for any one who understands the subject to say with accuracy in my judgment that the combination of those elements in the one case is the same as the combination of the elements in the other case, or that the one combination differs from the other only in an immaterial point of variation."
Yet, if the combination does not show a sufficient amount of novelty, it will not be the subject of a patent. In Brunton v. Hawkes, 4 B. & Ald. 550 (1821), Abbott, C.J., referring to this, says :-“Now a patent for a machine, each part of which was in use before, but in which the combination of the different parts is new, and a new result produced, is good; because there is a novelty in the combination. But here (see case below, p. 12) the case is different; formerly three pieces were united together: the plaintiff only unites two; and if the union of these two had been effected in a mode unknown before, as applied in any degree to similar purposes, I should have thought it a good ground for a patent; but unfortunately the mode was well-known and long practised. I think that 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.
The following are a few cases where the combinations have been held good : Lewis v. Davis, i Web. P.R. 488 (1829).
The shearing of cloth from list by shears was known; also shearing cloth from end to end by rotary cutters was known. A machine constructed to shear from list to list by rotary cutters was held a valid combination for shearing from list to list, and the subject of
a patent. Bovill v. Keyworth, 7 E. & B. 735 (1857).
The combination of the application of a blast and an exhaust to the working of a mill, to carry off the dusty air blown between the mill stones. Held
good. Lister v. Leather, 8 E. & B. 1004 (1858).
The combination of an existing patent with other machinery, for improvements in preparing and combing
wool. Held good. Foxwell v. Bostock, 4 De G. J. & S. 298 (1864).
4 Improvements in machinery for sewing and stitching
by a combination of a needle and shuttle. Dudgeon 1. Thompson. Scotch cases, 4th ser. vol. iv. 256 (1876).
Improved apparatus for expanding boiler tubes, by the combination of rollers, roller stock, and an
expanding instrument like a tapering plug. Cases where the combination has not been held of sufficient novelty to support a patent :Saunders v. Aston, 3 B. & Ald. 881 (1820).
A combination of a button and a flexible shank, neither of which were new. Held that they did not by merely being put together constitute a sufficient
invention for a patent. Brunton v. Hawkes, 4 B. & Ald. 550 (1821).
Improvements in anchors by making the shank in one piece and the arms in one piece. This plan had been used in mushroom anchors for buoys, &c., previously, but not for ships. Held no novelty (see
above). Saxby v. Gloucester Waggon Co., L.R. 7 Q.B.D. 312 (1881).
A patent for improvements in interlocking railway signals and points. Patents had been previously obtained in 1870 and 1871 for inventions of an appa
known invention and a known
ratus for similar purposes; and all the results of the
or ingenuity was shown in the combination. Cropper v. Smith, W.N. 1883, p. 49.
A patent for a combination of known machinery in
a novel manner upheld. Also, a subordinate combination of new parts is the subject Combination of of a patent, but they must be claimed.
Lord Cairns, in his judgment in Clark v. Aidie, L.R. 2 App. Ca. 321, 322 (1877), lays down the doctrine: "A combination of parts going to make up a step in the whole apparatus; that subordinate integer is a matter for protection, but must be specifically claimed.”
A combination of a known invention with a known material Combination of a has been held the subject of a patent. Crane v. Price, 1 Web. P.R. 409.
thing. Anthracite combined with a hot air blast for smelting
gas jet and a mandril to bend walking sticks. The claim in a combination must be only for the particular individual improvements, not for the old parts, and this must clearly be expressed in the specification (see post, p. 49).
And the result produced by such combinations must be either the result proa new article, or a better article, or a cheaper article, than duced by combithat produced before by the old method ; such combination is then an invention or manufacture within the Statute and the subject of a patent (per Tindal, C.J., in Crane v. Price, 1 Web. P.R. 409, quoted in Murray v. Clayton, L.R. 7 Ch. 578 (1872). Cannington v. Nuttall, L.R. 5 H.L. 205 (1871).
A patent for improvements in manufacturing glass, to prevent excessive heating in the chamber which contained the materials to be made glass. Held, although all the principles were known before, yet the new form of combining them made the melting of the materials less costly, and not so subject to danger,
therefore the patent was upheld. Where there is anything material and new which is an Utility.
Alteration in an
An addition to a known machine.
Combination of known inven
improvement of the trade, that will be sufficient to support a patent.
R. v. Arkwright, 1 Web. P.R. 71 (1785). And even where part only of the combination is new, if that is of sufficient utility after deducting the old part, it can be the subject of a patent.
Frearson v. Loe, L.R. 9 Ch.D. 64 (1878).
Also, where a slight alteration in a combination turns that old combination,
which was practically useless before into that which is very useful and important, though the invention is small, yet the result is so great as fairly to be the subject of a patent.
Hinks v. Safety Lighting Co., L.R. 4 Ch.D. 616
(1877). An improved combination can be the subject of a patent.
Hill v. Thompson, 1 Web. P.R. 237 (1817).
Carpenter v. Smith, 1 Web. P.R. 532 (1842). An addition made to a known machine is the subject of a patent.
Morris v. Bramson, 1 Web. P.R. 51 (1776).
But although a combination of, or an improvement on, or tions cannot be addition to, old inventions, is the subject of a patent itself, it
cannot be used without the license of the original patentee, patentee.
or the proprietor of such old inventions or invention, during their or its existence, if the old inventions or invention have to be used in the combination, or with the improvement or addition ; but on the expiration of the patent for such inventions or invention, the patent for the combination, or improvement, or addition, can be used without any license.
In ex parte Fox, 1 Web. P.R. 431 (1812), Lord Eldon said, in a case of a patent "for certain improvements upon an engine for which a patent had been granted, and those improvements could not be used without the original engine, that at the end of the fourteen years the petitioner could make use of a patent taken out upon the improvements, although before that period expired he would have no right to make use of others substratum.”
And in Lister v. Leather, 8 E. & B. 1017 (1858), Lord Campbell said :-" The patent for an improvement on an invention already the subject of a patent, if confined to the improvement, is not an infringement of the former patent. The use of the improvement with the former invention during the existence of the former patent, without license, would be an infringement; but with license, that also would be lawful, and is in constant experience."
And the same rule was laid down in Fox v. Dellestable, 15 W.R. 195 (1866), that a man may make an invention
which is partly covered by an existing patent, but he cannot use it without the license of the patentee.
Such licences are now compulsory, for under section 22, S. 22.
proved to the Board of Trade that by
or using to the best advantage an
invention of which he is possessed,
3. New process.
3. A new process in producing a known article.
A patent may be extended to a new process to be carried on by known implements or elements, and ultimately producing some other known substance, but producing it cheaper, or in a more expeditious manner, or of a better or more useful kind (per Abbott, C.J., in R. v. Wheeler, 2 B. & Ald. 350 (1819), quoted and approved of in Murray v. Clayton, L.R. 7 Ch. 584 (1872), by James, L.J.).
And in Walton v. Potter, I Web. P.R. 590 (1841), Tindal, C.J., referring to this point, said : “Now there can be no doubt whatever that, although one man has obtained a patent for a given object, there are many modes still open for other men of ingenuity to obtain a patent for the same object. There may be many roads leading to one place, and if a man has by dint of his own genius and discovery, after a patent has been obtained, been able to give the public, without reference to the former one, or borrowing from the former one, a new and superior mode of arriving at the same end, there can be no objection to his taking out a patent for that purpose."
Also in Stevens v. Keating, 2 Web. P.R. 182 (1847), per