Page images
PDF
EPUB

tution without change of the mode of operation of the particular machine in which the substitution is made, but was a change which introduced a new mode of operation into that machine and amounted to invention.

§ 16. Invention by Duplication.

While a mere duplication of old devices is not an invention, a duplication involving a new mode of operation amounts to invention. Thus, in the case of Wyeth v. Stone, 1 Story, 273, the patentee had produced a machine for cutting a deep groove in ice to enable it to be readily separated into long pieces. The machine. consisted in substance of a longitudinal stock or beam with a guide at one side, and with several cutters arranged behind each other projecting to progressively increased distances beneath the stock, so that the material was ploughed out by a succession of chippings or shavings by one passage of the machine over it. It was contended on the part of the defendant that the machine amounted in substance to no more than the carpenter's plough for grooving boards, a tool which has a stock with a guide at one side and a single projecting cutter cutting a single chip or shaving at each longitudinal movement of the implement, and that the use of a number of cutters in the ice plough was a mere duplication of the single cutter of the carpenter's plough. The improvement was declared to be patentable, Judge Story delivering the opinion of the court. In this case it is evident that there was a new mode of operation produced by the improvement, viz: that the material operated upon was removed by a successive series of cuts all produced simultaneously by the operation of the

machine, and the quantity removed at one operation depends upon the number of cutters with which the machine was fitted, each taking its own chip successively in distance but simultaneously in time, the amount removed being controlled by the number of cutters; whereas with the carpenter's plough the material was removed by a single cut, and the amount removed depended upon the number of times the tool was passed along the work.

A similar instance is that of the Parker water wheel invention. Before the date of the invention it had been customary to arrange a single reaction wheel or turbine upon a shaft, and in such case the pressure of the water upon what may be termed the face of the wheel, or that side at which the water entered the buckets or guides, was exerted endwise of the shaft and had to be sustained by the step or bearing thereof. According to one of the Parker improvements two such wheels were arranged in a pair face to face on the same shaft, and the water was supplied between them, so that the pressure of the water upon one wheel endwise of the shaft was counterbalanced by the equal and opposite pressure of the water upon the other wheel. Hence the endwise strains upon the shaft counterbalanced each other, and the bearings of the shaft were relieved of these strains. In this case it is evident that a new mode of operation (the counterbalancing of the strains) was produced by the peculiar mode in which the wheels were duplicated; and by reason of this new mode of operation the duplication of the wheels was not a mere duplication but amounted to an invention. The patent was sustained not only in a jury trial, but subsequently by a court of equity. Parker v. Hulme, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 44.

§ 17. Invention by Change of Direction of Motion.

An instance of a change of direction of motion which is not a mere change, is found in the Adams cornsheller, patented Oct. 15, 1872. Previous cornshelling machines had contained a combination of a rotating toothed cylinder and a stationary toothed shell to separate the grains from the cob, an endless apron to carry or feed the ears of corn to the shelling devices, and a revolving winged beater arranged between the shelling devices and the feeding apron. In such old machines the direction of motion of the wings of the revolving beater was the reverse of that of the ears of corn in their movement from the feed apron to the shelling devices; and the operation of the revolving beater was to knock back any ear of corn that might ride upon the others in their movement and to thereby tend to prevent the choking of the shelling devices. This mode of operation proved to be unsuccessful and the choking was not prevented. Adams discovered that when, with the same members arranged relatively to each other in the same manner, the direction of motion of the beater was changed so that its wings moved in a direction the same as that of the ears of corn, choking was wholly prevented, from the fact that the overriding ears, instead of being knocked back upon the others, were driven forward to the shelling devices. A new mode of operation was therefore produced by changing the direction of motion of one of the members of an old combination, without changing its construction and without changing either the number of members combined or their relative order or arrangement, and the change was properly declared to constitute an invention. H. H. Adams v. The Joliet Manufacturing Co., 3 Bann. & Ard. 1.

§ 18. Invention by the Practical Application of the Discovery of a New Property of Matter.

There does not appear to be any condition of facts in which the simple discovery of a new property of matter amounts to an invention; but there are undoubtedly cases in which such a discovery accompanied with a practical application of it, by which the newly discovered property is made available for a useful purpose, amounts to invention. Take for example the case of the discovery by Charles Goodyear that sulphur is capable of combining with india rubber under the action of heat and that the compound can be put into various useful forms during its manufacture, and when completed has not only the useful properties of crude rubber but` is free from some of its defects. In this case the new product or manufacture was decided to be an invention. Providence Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 76 U. S. 9 Wall. 788, 19 L. ed. 566.

§ 19. Invention Determinable by Rules and Evidence.

The instances above referred to demonstrate that, even in cases in which the change from pre-existing things is the least when considered with reference solely to the mechanical work involved in making the change, the question whether the change amounts to invention or not may be determined by the application of plain, reasonable rules to the evidence that may be given; it being evident that in every case it is possible to prove as a matter of fact whether the change made has or has not introduced a new mode of operation into the particular art or class of machines to which the invention appertains; or has or has not enabled a new effect in kind to

be produced; or has or has not enabled an old effect to be more economically attained; or has or has not dispensed with parts of old mechanism; or, if a change of material, has or has not introduced a new property or quality into the class of articles to which the invention. appertains. This is the method of determining invention which is satisfactory to the mechanic and inventor; and if the existence of invention is determined by this method, it is within the domain of evidence, and there must necessarily be substantial uniformity in the decisions of the courts; counsel also can form a reliable opinion as to the merits of cases which are submitted to them, and can advise their clients accordingly. Whereas, if invention is to be determined by opinion as to whether the supposed inventive faculty of the mind has or has not been exercised, evidence as to facts becomes practically valueless, because the decision must then depend upon the peculiar personal view of the court as to the assumed exercise or lack of exercise of a supposed mental faculty whose qualities and limits are indefinable.

If the question of invention or non-invention can be determined by evidence in cases such as the foregoing, in which the mechanical change involved is so small, how much more certainly must it be determinable in cases when the mechanical change is large; such as the production of a new device; or the production of a combination of two or more devices which have never before been combined; or the combination of an old combination with an additional device, whether new or old of itself, which enables a new result to be accomplished, or enables an old result to be accomplished by a new mode of operation or at a less cost than was possible by preexisting means.

« PreviousContinue »