sary. This was held to be a patentable invention. (Wallington v. Dale, 7 Exch. Rep. 888.)

CLASSES OF PATENTABLE INVENTIONS.

The inventions for which valid patents have been. granted may be roughly divided into the following classes :

1. New contrivances applied to new objects or purposes, and yielding new results.

2. New contrivances applied to old objects or purposes.

3. New combinations of old parts, or of old and new parts, the subject-matter consisting either of material objects or of mechanical processes.

4. New methods of applying an old thing.

5. Chemical processes, sometimes in combination with mechanical contrivances.

The reader may like to have some illustrations of these classes of inventions, and we shall proceed to offer the following:-

1. New contrivances applied to new objects or purposes. Several modern inventions of great commercial or social importance would fall under this head. Amongst them are conspicuous-Apparatus to be worked by electricity for transmitting messages from place to place on land; wire cables for transmitting messages by the aid of electricity across the ocean; telephonic apparatus for transmitting words from the mouth of a speaker to the ear of a listener at a distance; the art of photography; the art of electroplating. All these have been invented and made wonderful progress within the recollection of many persons now living.

2. A new contrivance employed to effect a well-known object to make, for instance, an article previously made in a different way-is also patentable, provided that the new contrivance is attended with some degree of utility; for example, that it accomplishes the result more rapidly, efficiently, or cheaply than the old contrivance. "There may be a valid patent' (said Lord Eldon in Hill v. Thompson, 1 W. P. C. 237) for a new combination of materials

previously in use for the same purpose, or for a new method of applying such materials.'

Again, where an invention effects a known purpose with new materials, it will be held a patentable process. Thus, Binney obtained a patent for the manufacture of packing for the joints of steam-engines. Feltmann afterwards obtained a patent for the same object, but he employed different materials for the packing stuff. The later patent was held to be good for a new process. (Binney v. Feltmann, 1 Griff, P. C. 50.)

A process by which a product is directly obtained when the old method of obtaining it was indirect may form the subject of a patent. Thus, it was held in Booth v. Kennard (1 H. & N. 527), that to obtain gas by the direct distillation of oleaginous seeds was a patentable invention, although gas had been previously obtained by the distillation of oil expressed from oleaginous seeds.

3. A new combination of known parts or old processes producing a new result, or producing an old result in a more economical manner or more perfect form, whereby articles cheaper or better than had ever before been produced are rendered accessible to the public, will be held a meritorious and patentable invention. It was held in Crane v. Price (1 W. P. C. 408) that the combination of the hotair blast with stone coal in the smelting of iron (the hot-air blast and stone coal having been separately in use before, but the combination being previously unknown) was an invention intended by the statute, and such as might well become the subject of a patent. It was said by Tindal, C. J., that there were numerous instances of patents where the invention consisted in no more than in the use of things already known, and acting with them in a manner already known, and producing effects already known, but producing those effects so as to be more economically or beneficially enjoyed by the public.

That the novel combination of old parts having a useful result may form the subject of a valid patent has been again and again decided. (Lister v. Leather, 8 E. and B.

1004; Newall v. Elliott, 10 Jur. N. s. 954; S. C. 13 W. R. 11; Murray v. Clayton, L. R. 7 C. 570; Cannington v. Nuttall, L. R. 5 H. L. 205; Hayward v. Hamilton, 1 Griffin P. C. 115.) If there be' (said Lord Westbury in Spencer v. Jack, 3 De G. J. & S. 346) a combination of several things previously well known, which combination is attended with such results of utility and advantage to the public that the combination itself is rightly denominated a substantial improvement, it is impossible to deny that that is the subject of a patent.' See further as to combinations in the chapter on the Complete Specification.

A new combination of processes may even consist of an old combination with the omission of one of the old processes, provided that some degree of invention has been manifested in arriving at the new combination or process. Thus in the case of Russell v. Cowley (1 W. P. C. 459) a patent had been obtained for an invention for manufacturing iron tubes, by welding them without the use of a mandrel, or internal support; and its validity being contested, it was held good. Lord Lyndhurst read the specification as claiming only the manufacture of tubes without a mandrel. By the new process, tubes could be made of greater length, of greater uniformity, and considerably cheaper, than before.

But the combinations for which patents are obtained frequently consist not only of old parts, but to some extent of new parts, which are themselves minor inventions and may be protected as such. If any one of the parts is new, it follows that the entire combination is new too.

The introduction into an old combination of a new shape of one of the old elements of that combination, which new shape invokes a physical law otherwise left on one side (e.g. employing a filament of carbon instead of a thick rod in an incandescent electrical lamp), is a good subject for a patent. (Edison & Swan United Electric Light Co. v. Woodhouse (first action), 4 R. P. C. 93.)

4. A new mode of applying a known thing may be the subject of a patent, provided that some ingenuity, some novelty, is exhibited in the mode of making that application, and that

the application is attended by some useful result. (See the section on Applications in Chapter V.) In Watt's patent for a new method of lessening the consumption of steam and fuel in steam-engines, the enclosing of the cylinder in a case of wood, or any other material that transmits heat slowly, was claimed, and allowed to be a patentable invention. (Boulton v. Bull, 2 H. Bl. 463, 1 Carp. 117.) In Forsyth's patent for a method of discharging fire-arms, the patentee claimed the use and application of certain known fulminating compounds for this purpose. It was contended that, since the properties of detonating powder were well known for other purposes, the using of such materials to discharge fire-arms was not a new manufacture for which a patent could be supported. But Abbott, C. J., stated that if the invention (i.e. this particular application of detonating powder) were new, it was such a one as might be secured by patent. The jury having found the invention to be a new one, the patentee had a verdict. (Forsyth v. Riviere, 1 Carp. 404.)

Charcoal had been used in refining sugar previously to Derosne's patent; but the old method was to mix charcoal powder with the syrup, and the new was to pass the syrup through beds of charcoal constructed in a particular manner. By the old process a considerable quantity of charcoal was taken up by the syrup, and this was an injury to the sugar. In Derosne's process this objection did not arise; and, moreover, it was applicable not only to the refinement of coarse sugar, but to the original manufacture of sugar out of cane-juice. In an action brought for infringing the patent, the originality of the invention was held not to be impeached by showing that there had been an earlier use of charcoal in the refinement of sugar. No evidence was given that any other person, before the date of the plaintiff's patent, ever applied in use the particular mode of filtering syrup which the patent was intended to introduce and in the absence of such evidence, Lord Abinger directed the jury to find for the plaintiff. (Derosne v. Fairie, 1 W. P. C. 154.)

:

In the case of Cornish v. Keene (1 W. P. C. 517) a patent for improvements in the manufacture of elastic fabrics was

୯

contested. The patentee's mode of effecting his object was by introducing into the fabric threads of india-rubber, coated with filamentous material and applied as warp or weft, or as both, according to the direction of the elasticity required -the india-rubber threads having been stretched to their utmost tension and rendered non-elastic before being introduced into the fabric, and then being rendered elastic by the application of heat. It was contended that this was neither a new manufacture, nor an improvement of an old manufacture, but was merely the application of a known material, in a known manner, to a purpose known before. That it is a manufacture' (said Tindal, C. J., delivering the judgment of the Court) can admit of no doubt; it is a vendible article, produced by the hand and art of man. Whether it is new or not, or whether it is an improvement of an old manufacture, was one of the questions for the jury, upon the evidence before them; but that it came within the description of a manufacture, and so far is an invention which may be protected by a patent, we feel no doubt whatever. The materials, indeed, are old, and have been used before; but the combination is alleged to be, and, if the jury are right in their finding, is, new; and the result or production is equally so. The use of elastic threads or strands of india-rubber, previously covered by filaments wound round them, was known before; the use of yarns of cotton, or other non-elastic material, was also known before; but the placing them alternately side by side together as a warp, and combining them by means of a weft when in extreme tension, and deprived of their elasticity, appears to be new; and the result, viz., a cloth in which the nonelastic threads form a limit up to which the elastic threads may be stretched, but beyond which they cannot, and therefore cannot easily be broken, appears a production altogether new. It is a manufacture at once ingenious and simple.'

A patent was granted for an improved mode of, and apparatus for, bending wood for the handles of walkingsticks, &c., and the specification described the apparatus as being a vice for holding a stick, previously softened in moist sand, placed close to a hollow mandrel, on which the bend