that a similar contrivance had been employed previously in cotton spinning.

In Parkes v. Stevens (L. R. 8 Eq. 358), James, V. C., was of opinion that the substitution of a slide for a hinge in the door of a lamp could not be the foundation of a valid patent. And in the same case (affirmed L. R. 5 Ch. D. 36) it was held that the application of a sliding door to a spherical lamp was not patentable, as it was proved that sliding doors had been previously fitted to cylindrical lamps.

When it was shown that there existed a previous patent for preserving meat already salted, dried, or smoked, by dipping it into a solution of bisulphide of lime, it was held that an invention, the object of which was to preserve fresh meat by dipping it into a like solution, was not patentable. (Bailey v. Roberton, L. R. 3 App. Ca. 1079.)

In the case of Saxby v. The Gloucester Waggon Company (L. R. 7 Q. B. D. 305), it was decided by the House of Lords that a combination of an old locking apparatus with an old actuating apparatus for working railway signals and points did not display a sufficient amount of invention to support a patent, it having been proved that the combination was effected by obvious means and in a way that did not call for more than ordinary mechanical skill. (See also Williams v. Nye, 7 R. P. C. 37, 62.)

Notwithstanding proof of practical usefulness and of a large sale, it was held by the Court of Appeal that the making of the handles of bats used in lawn tennis and other games with two opposite grooves and with an enlarged end was not good subject-matter for a patent. (Slazenger v. Feltham, 6 R. P. C. 232.)

The discovery that a particular advantage may be obtained by using a known machine in a known manner is not a patentable invention. (Tetley v. Easton, 2 C. B. n. s. 706.)

In the process of calendering woven fabrics the use of a roller and a bowl, and the means of regulating the relative speed of their motions, were well known. In the process

of calendering, the roller was smooth, and the speeds of the roller and bowls were different. In embossing, the roller had a pattern upon it, and the speeds of the roller and bowl were equal. A patent was taken out for a combination of a patterned roller with a bowl moving at unequal speeds. The invention was held not to be one which could be the subject of a valid patent, as it amounted to nothing more than showing how to use an existing machine more beneficially than had been previously known. Although the patentee might have discovered that by making the patterned roller and the bowl move at different speeds instead of at the same speed, and by moving the fabric transversely when fed up, the machine could be worked more advantageously than formerly, he had no right to prohibit the owner from using his property as he thought fit. (Ralston v. Smith, 9 C. B. N. s. 117; affirmed by the House of Lords, 11 H. L. C. 223.)

In the case of Patterson v. The Gas Light and Coke Company (L. R. 2 Ch. D. 812, L. R. 3 App. Cas. 239), a patentee claimed the employment of sulphides of calcium in separate purifiers as a means of purifying coal gas from sulphur existing in other forms than that of sulphuretted hydrogen. Now, as it was well known to chemists, and had been long taught in books, that sulphides of calcium would absorb sulphur compounds-moreover, as it was plain that if sulphide of calcium was to be used, a separate holder must be employed, and as no special apparatus was suggested, it was held that there was no invention that would support a patent. The same patentee also claimed a method or system of employing lime purifiers in succession, whereby the contents of all the purifiers, or any required number of them, could be converted into sulphides of calcium, and also, if required, be maintained in that condition. Now, lime purifiers in succession had been in general use for a long time, and the patentee had not devised either a new process or any new apparatus. What he really thought he had discovered was that if the carbonic acid, which is the first thing taken up by the lime, was

allowed to enter the last purifiers, it would have a deleterious effect on the purifying process. It ought, therefore, to be removed at the beginning of the operation. But this, though it might be a very useful piece of advice, and an instruction of great value, was held by the Court of Appeal not to constitute of itself the subject-matter of a patent.

A specification claimed the use of solid naphthaline prepared in the form of sticks, rods, or pellets, for the enrichment of illuminating gas. Now as liquid naphthaline had been previously applied for enriching illuminating gas, and as solid naphthaline in the granular form and in the form of sticks was a known article, it was held that this application of known article to a purpose for which the same article in another form had been previously applied was not proper subject-matter for a patent. (Albo-Carbon Light

Co. v. Kidd, 4 R. P. C. 535.)

The following have been judicially held not to be patentable inventions: The use of steel hoops in a petticoat instead of whalebone hoops (Thompson v. James, 32 Bea. 570); the use of hollow iron columns filled with water in the construction of buildings and for the support of fireproof floors (Tickelpenny v. Army and Navy Co-operative Society, 5 R. P. C. 405); the substitution of a hinge or pivot for a slide in certain cooking apparatus (Fletcher v. Aiden, 5 R. P. C. 46); the substitution of a pivot for a hinge in a nail-making machine (United Horseshoe & Nail Co. v. Swedish Horse Nail Co., 6 R. P. C. 1).'

PATENTS FOR APPLICATIONS.'

These are patents for inventions which have reference to the application of an existing article to a purpose for which other similar articles have been previously used; or

1 Other cases in which the inventions were held to be insufficient to support patents were White v. Toms (32 L. J. Ch. 204); Jackson v. Needle (2 R. P. C. 191); Sharp v. Brauer (3 R. P. C. 193); Guilbert-Martin v. Kerr (4 R. P. C. 18); Britain v. Hirsch (2 R. P. C. 74); S. C. on app. 226; Walker v. Longford Wire Co. (4 R. P. C. 281); Rowcliffe v. Longford Wire Co. (4 R. P. C. 287); Haslam Co. v. Hall (5 R. P. C. 21); Longbottom v. Shaw (5 R. P. C. 497; affirmed on appeal, 6 R. P. C. 143); Gaulard and Gibb's Patent (5 R. P. C. 525); Herrburger v. Squire, on appeal (6 R. P. C. 194) ; Windover v. Morgan (7 R. P. C. 130).

to the application of a well-known process to produce a wellknown article; or to the application of a well-known process to effect a result in a well-known article after the same process has been publicly applied to an analogous article. When there is nothing new in the machinery or methods employed, patents for such applications are not favoured by the law, which looks upon the inventions as wanting in ingenuity or novelty. The rule is well established that the mere application of an old mechanical contrivance to an analogous purpose is not an invention for which a patent can be granted. In all the cases in which a patent has been supported' (said Lord Campbell in Brook v. Aston, 8 E. & B. 478) 'there has been some discovery, some invention. It has not been merely the application of the old machinery in the old manner to an analogous substance. That cannot be the subject of a patent.'

In Harwood v. Great Northern Railway Company (2 B. & S. 208), Sir A. Cockburn, C. J., said: Although the authorities establish the proposition that the same means, apparatus, or mechanical contrivance cannot be applied to the same purpose, or to purposes so nearly cognate and similar as that the application of it in the one case naturally leads to the application of it when required in some other, still the question in every case is one of degree, whether the amount of affinity or similarity which exists between the two purposes is such as that they are substantially the same; and that determines whether the invention is sufficiently meritorious to be deserving of a patent.'

'If the use or application is merely analogous' (said Mr. Justice Chitty in Lister v. Norton, 3 R. P. C. 205) 'it is plain that the patent cannot be granted. When it is not only analogous, but is sufficiently out of the beaten track, the patent may be upheld. These general propositions are not precise or scientific. It is impracticable to frame propositions of a scientific character on this point. Every case must be decided on its peculiar merits and with reference to its own special circumstances. The authorities are necessarily decisions on particular cases, and are useful only

as affording some guide to the decision of the case before the Court.'

The following cases will illustrate the law as thus laid down by these learned judges :

:

The casting of tubular boilers in one piece, similar boilers having been previously made in several pieces which were afterwards fastened together by means of cement, was held not to be an invention for which a valid patent could be obtained, although the result was useful and beneficial to the public. It was only the application of a well-known article, viz. iron, by a well-known process, viz. casting, to the production of a well-known article, tubular boilers. (Ormson v. Clark, 13 C. B. N. s. 337; S. C. in error, 14 C. B. N. s. 475.)

Again, the application of double-angle iron (a well-known article of commerce already applied to a variety of purposes) to the construction of hydraulic joints of telescopic gasholders, instead of making them of two pieces of singleangle iron attached to a plate, was held not to be patentable. (Horton v. Mabon, 12 C. B. N. s. 437; S. C. in error, 16 C. B. N. s. 141.)

'The use of a new material to produce a known article is not the subject of a patent,' said V. C. Malins, in Rushton v. Crawley (L. R. 10 Eq. 522), a case where a man had taken out a patent for the use of a kind of wool called Russian tops in the manufacture of artificial hair. (See also Thompson v. James, 32 Beav. 570.)

In the case of Losh v. Hague (1 W. P. C. 202), the question was reduced to this-Is a man who finds a particular construction of wheel already in use for carriages on ordinary roads entitled to a patent for applying it to railway carriages, such application not having been previously made? Lord Abinger remarked that you cannot have a patent for applying a well-known thing, capable of being applied to fifty thousand different purposes, to an operation which is exactly analogous to what was done before. His lordship put this case: Suppose a man invents a pair of scissors to cut cloth with; if the scissors were never in