2. Parol evidence bearing upon written contracts and papers.

See EVIDENCE.

PARTICULAR PATENTS-BLANCHARD'S.

Blanchard's patent held to be for a machine and not a principle or function.
Blanchard v. Sprague, I. 734.

OLIVER EVANS'S.

1. The Act of 1808, ch. 117, authorizes a patent to Oliver Evans for his inven-
tion, discovery, and improvements in the art of manufacturing flour, and of
the several machines applicable to that purpose. Evans v. Eaton, I. 243.
2. The act of Congress for the relief of Oliver Evans does not preclude judi-
cial inquiry into the originality of his invention. Ib.

3. Although the Act of Congress authorized the issue of a patent to Evans for
the several machines as well as for the entire improvement—yet the patent
issued is confined to the improvements in the art of manufacturing flour by
those machines. Ib.

4. As to right of Oliver Evans to a patent for all of his improvements — and
degree of particularity required in the description of his improvements. And
of his right to sue in the Circuit Courts. Ib.

EMERSON'S PATENT.

Sustained. See Hogg et al. v. Emerson, II. 655.

WOODWORTH'S PATENT.

The specification of this patent for a planing machine, held sufficient and
proper, and the reissued patent declared to be valid. Wilson v. Rousseau et
al. II. 372; Woodworth et al. v. James Wilson et al. II. 473.

PARTIES IN ACTIONS.

For violating patent-rights, the parties only are concerned, although the public
may have an eventual interest in it, yet the United States are in nowise a
party to the proceedings, and cannot be substituted as plaintiff in place of
the petitioner. Wood v. Williams, I. 717.

PATENT.

1. Is not to protect a monopoly of what existed before, but something which
did not exist and which belongs to the patentee. Davoll et al. v. Brown, II.
303.

-

they are not granted as

2. They are not monopolies, in the odious sense
restrictions upon the rights of the community, but to promote science and
the useful arts. Blanchard v. Sprague, I. 734.

3. The exclusive right under a patent does not rest alone on the discovery of
the inventor-but also upon the legal sanctions which have been given it
and the forms of law with which it has been clothed. There must be a
substantial compliance with every legal requisite. Shaw v. Cooper, I. 643.
4. But it is valid although the oath required by the act, previous to the issuing
of the patent, be not taken. Whittemore v. Cutter, I. 28.

5. Must substantially recite the allegations and suggestions of the petition. Evans v. Chambers, I. 7.

6. And it can only be for the invention recited in the patent and described in
the specification. Evans v. Eaton, I. 68.

7. May be for a joint invention. If each of the patentees obtain a separate
patent for the same invention they are estopped by the joint patent-to
assert any title in the separate patents. Barrett et al. v. Hall et al. I. 207.
8. The right to a patent belongs to him who is the first inventor, even before
the patent is granted, and any one constructing the invention will acquire
no right to use it if a patent is subsequently granted. Evans v. Weiss, I. 10.
9. And if the inventor abandons the use of it, and does not make applica-
tion, no other person can. Evans v. Eaton, I. 68.

10. No extent of disuse will be an abandonment. Gray et al. v. James et al.
I. 120.

11. When the invention is of an improvement only and not of the whole
machine, the patent is to be limited to the improvement. Whittemore et
al. v. Cutter, I. 40.

12. For several improvements in a machine, each of which is claimed, if any
one of them be not new the patent is void. Moody v. Fiske et al. I. 312.
13. Void if claim is for more than the invention. Stanley v. Whipple, II. 1 ;
Evans v. Eaton, I. 336.

14. For an improvement, is void if it is broader than the particular improvement
invented. Woodcock v. Parker et al. I. 37.

15. For a machine embracing a prior invention, without which the plaintiff's invention could not operate to produce the desired result, is too broad and consequently void. Watson v. Bladen, I. 510.

16. Although too broad in its general terms, will be limited by the summary in the specification, if the thing intended to be patented be clearly shown. Whitney et al. v. Emmett et al. I. 567.

17. Is a contract with the public, and must be complied with in the same good faith as other contracts, and the right secured by it will be protected by a liberal construction of the law, and the acts of the patentee. lb.

18. Can only be declared void by the Court in the cases provided for in the sixth section of the Act of 1793. lb.

19. If it be for the whole machine it must be shown to be substantially new in its structure and mode of operation. Evans v. Eaton, I. 336.

20. If the same combination existed up to a certain point, and the invention consisted in adding something new to the old, the patent should be limited to such improvement. Ib.

21. And it must clearly appear by the description in the specification in what the improvement consists. It is not sufficient that it be made out and shown at the trial, or by comparison of the machine described with others in prior use. Ib.

22. Shall not include inventions for two distinct machines. Root v. Ball et al. II. 513.

23. But in cases of combination, it may extend to elements of such combination that are new or improvements thereon. Ib.

24. And for a combination of parts, is not a patent for each of the parts separately. Treadwell et al. v. Bladen, I. 531.

25. May be granted for a combination of old principles and old materials — producing a new result. Pennock et al. v. Dialogue, I. 466; Evans v. Eaton, I. 336.

26. If for the whole machine when the invention is of an improvement only, will be void. Evans v. Eaton, I. 68.

27. But if for a machine or an improvement it will be good, although parts of it were known before. Ib.

28. For a combination of machines to produce a given result, is not a patent also for the particular machines comprising the combination — but to secure them the inventor should take out a patent for each of said machines of which he is the original inventor. Ib.

29. Quare, whether improvements on different machines, can be comprehended in the same patent so as to give a right to the exclusive use of several machines separately, as well as the right to the use of them in combination. Ib. 69.

30. May include several improvements on one and the same machine or two machines which conduce to the same common purpose; although they are each separately capable of a distinct application. But cannot include them if designed for different and independent objects. Wyeth et al. v. Stone et al. II. 23.

31. But one patent cannot include the separate machines as well as the combination. Barrett et al. v. Hall et al. I. 207.

32. There must be several patents for several improvements of distinct machines. Ib.

33. For an improvement on an existing machine, will be limited to such improvement, which must be clearly described. If not it is void for ambiguity. If broader than the improvement it is void on other grounds. Ib.

34. For a machine, or an improvement on one, should not be for a method, but for the machine or improvement. Ib.

35. They are to be construed liberally. Blanchard v. Sprague, I. 734. 36. And will not be vitiated by a mistake in an expression, appearing to be so by another part of the specification. Kneass v. The Schuylkill Bank, I.

303.

37. Nor will it be invalid because the description contains matters of form and proportion suggested by the mechanic employed to construct the machine. Pennock et al. v. Dialogue, I. 466.

38. A patent for "a new and useful improvement in the machine for threshing and cleaning grain; but described in the specification as consisting of a combination of several distinct improvements, was held to embrace not only the combination, but each distinct improvement, so far as it was the invention

of the patentee; and that the descriptive words were to be construed in con-
nection with the specification. Pitts v. Whitman, II. 189.

39. For an improvement on an existing machine, in which the new is dis-
tinguished from the old, will be good, although the description should not
be so clear as to enable a person skilled to construct the thing invented;
unless the defective description was intended to deceive. Lowell v. Lewis,
I. 131.
40. Not void as under the former law, because the patentee claims more than
he has invented, but so far as the invention goes he is protected, provided it
be clearly distinguishable from that claimed without right. Peterson et al. v.
Wooden, II. 116.

41. May be granted for an improvement in the principle of an existing ma-
chine. Evans v. Eaton, I. 68.

42. But for an improvement on a previously patented machine is invalid un-
less the improvement be substantially different in principle from the original
invention. Smith v. Pearce, II. 13.

43. Cannot be granted for an effect only; but for an effect produced in a given
manner, or by a peculiar operation. Whittemore et al. v. Cutter, I. 40.

44. May be for a new and useful art; but it must be practical and be explica-
ble and referable to something which may prove it to be useful. Evans v.
Eaton, I. 68.

45. May be granted for the art of printing on the back of bank-notes. Kneass
v. The Schuylkill Bank, I. 303.

46. May be for a new mode or process to produce an old result; but not for
an old process to produce a new result. Howev. Abbott, II. 99; Bean v.
Smallwood, II. 133.

47. May be for a mode or method of doing a thing; mode, when referred to
something permanent, means an engine or machine; when to something
fugitive, a method, which may mean process, instrument, manner of effect-
ing the purpose. Whitney et al. v. Emmett et al. I. 567.

48. For particular means or implements by which an article is produced, does
not give a monopoly in the sale of the product. Boyd v. Brown, II. 203;
Boyd v. McAlpin, II. 277.

49. Will not be granted for an invention resting in mere theory or intellectual
motion, or uncertain experiments. Reed v. Cutter et al. II. 81.

50. For a principle or function simply, detached from machinery, will not be
valid. Blanchard v. Sprague, I. 734.

51. For an abstract principle is void. Stone v. Sprague et al. II. 10; Wyeth et
al. v. Stone et al. II. 23.

52. "For cutting ice by any other process than human, is a claim for an ab-
stract principle. Wyeth et al. v. Stone et al. II. 23.

53. For all modes of communicating motion from one part of a machine to
another part would be void, as an attempt to patent an abstract principle.
Stone v. Sprague et al. II. 10.

54. But for an improvement in the art of making nails by means of a machine
which cuts and heads the nails at one operation, is not the grant of an ab-

stract principle, nor is it the grant of the different parts of any machine,
but of an improvement applied to a practical use, effected by a combination
of various mechanical powers to produce a new result.

et al. I. 120.

Gray et al. v. James

55. The invention must be new in structure or material. Hotchkiss v. Green-
wood et al. II. 730.

56. Cannot be sustained for making an article, after a known method; because
the material out of which it is made was never applied to that purpose be-
fore. But if the material be a new compound, a patent may be sustained
for that. Ib.

57. Door knobs having been made of glass, wood, brass, and other materials,
the making them of potter's ware or porcelain will not sustain a patent. B.
58. Will not be avoided by showing the prior existence of a thing similar in
principle to the thing invented, unless it be proved that it was in use. Pen-
nock et al. v. Dialogue, I. 466–542.

59. Under the law of 1793, is valid, though the invention may have been in use
for years prior to the patent, if the patentee was the first inventor. Quare.
Goodyear v. Matthews, I. 50.

60. To invalidate the plaintiff's patent it is not sufficient to show that the thing
patented was used prior to the plaintiff's application for a patent. It should
be shown that it was prior to his discovery. Treadwell v. Bladen, I. 531.
61. Date of will relate back to the time of discovery, if the defendant seeks to
avoid it by showing the existence of the thing patented before the date of
the patent. Dixon v. Moyer, I. 324.

62. For an invention will be defeated by the use of a machine, similar in prin-
ciple, prior to the invention, although such use was by way of experiment
only to test its value. Watson v. Bladen, I. 510.

63. Will not be invalidated by the use of his invention by others before ap
plication, and while he was practising upon it with a view to improve it;
but the motive for delay is a question for the jury. Morris v. Huntington,
I. 448.

64. Will not be defeated by showing that modifications of form and propor-
tion were suggested by the mechanic employed to construct the machine,
although such suggestions are set forth in the specification. Pennock et al. v.
Dialogue, I. 466; Watson v. Bladen, I. 510.

65. But if any of the essential parts and principles of the machine were suggest-
ed by another, the patent would be invalidated. Watson v. Bladen, I. 510.
66. Is not avoided on account of defect or concealment in the specification,
unless omitted or made with the intent to deceive the public. Whittemore v.
Cutter, I. 28.

67. Defective may be surrendered, and a new one obtained. Shaw v. Cooper, L.

643.

68. Reissued to have relation back to the emanation of the first, and being a
continuation of the first, the rights of the patentee must be ascertained by
the law under which the original application was made. Ib.
69. Patent reissued with a corrected specification, need not contain a recital that