The patentee may, by availing himself of the remedy thus provided, avoid the absolute loss of his monopoly, on account of those defects in the specification which were before the frequent occasion of its loss. In treating of the specification, the cases and the law will be stated just as if those acts had not been passed, the reader being apprized that for some of the defects, on account of which the patent right would otherwise be defeated, those acts afford a partial remedy, that is, he does not absolutely lose his privilege, provided he takes advantage of the provisions thus made in his favor.

There are two objects in view in making a specification. As the law grants the patentee a monopoly, and not only awards damages, but inflicts a penalty for a violation of the exclusive privilege, it very equitably requires that the invention shall be so described in the specification, that every person may, by examining it, know what the patentee claims, and be able to distinguish what may be an infringement. The other object of the specification is to give the public the advantage of the invention after the expiration of the patent. The consideration of the patent being the advantage to be derived to the public after its expiration, it is necessary, in order that this advantage may be realized, that the invention shall so be described in the specification, that one acquainted with the art or manufacture, to which it relates, or with which it is most nearly connected, may not only un

derstand the invention, but be able, by following the directions given in the specification, with the assistance of the drawings, to construct the machine or perform the process which is the subject of the patent. These two objects of the specification are the foundation of the rules and decisions in regard to it.

The English jurisprudence prescribes one rule on this subject which is not applicable to ours, namely, the one already mentioned, that the specification must agree with the title or patent, for in England the patent is for the title or general description of what is particularly described in the specification, and so also is our patent, but as our law makes the specification a part of the patent, the title or general description may not only be explained, but also controlled and enlarged by the recital of the more particular and full description given in the specification; for if it appear that the patentee has not, in his title, given a correct general description of his invention, but has fully and accurately described it in the specification, he ought not to lose his privilege on this account, since no wrong is done to the public, and no imposition is practised upon individuals. The case is different in England, as we have already suggested, where the rule that the specification must agree with the patent or title, and cannot enlarge it,

3 Evans v. Eaton, 7 Wheat. 433.

4

* Supra, p. 225.

has determined the fate of many patents. It will be sufficient to refer to the English cases on this subject generally, without repeating the reasoning or examining the grounds.5

Mr. Justice Grose, it is true, says in one case, “I consider the patent and specification so connected together as to make a part of each other, and that to learn what the patent is, I may read the specification and consider it as incorporated in the patent." But he means merely, that the specification may explain, and indeed its object is to explain, the title or patent, but it cannot enlarge the patent, and it must not be inconsistent with it. Thus the same judge says again in the same case, that "Although in words, the privilege granted by a patent is to exercise a method of making or doing any thing, yet if that thing is to be made or done by a manufacture, and the mode of making that manufacture is described, it then becomes in effect, (by whatever name it may be called), not a patent for a mere principle, but for a manufacture, for the thing so made, and not merely for the principle upon which it is made." For he and the other judges of the King's Bench did not consider it

any

3 Campion v. Benyon, 3 Brod. & Bing. 5. A. D. 1821; Per Dallas J. The King v. Metcalfe, 2 Stark. N. P. C. 249; Per Ellenborough C. J. 1817; The King v. Wheeler, 2 Barnw. & Ald. 348, (1819); Per Abbott C. J. Hornblower v. Boulton, 8 T. R. 102, (1815); Barrett v. Hall, 1 Mason's Reports, 476; Per Story J. 1818.

⚫ Hornblower v. Boulton, 8 T. R. 105. 'Hornblower v. Boulton, 8 T. R. 105,

inconsistency to explain a method, mode, or principle to be a machine or material product; that is, the inventor might get a patent of the method of doing a thing, and thus, in the specification, describe the thing as done by means of a machine.

In the United States, on the contrary, the specification is a part of the patent, not merely for the purpose of explaining the title or general description of the invention, but to all intents and purposes; and may either enlarge or control the general description, or be enlarged and controlled by it, according as one or the other seems to be the true construction, taking the whole instrument together.

8

Sec. II. GENERAL REQUISITES OF THE SPECIFICATION.

The general requisites of a specification are given in the patent act of 1793, s. 3. by which it is provided that "every inventor, before he can receive a patent, shall deliver a written description of his invention, and of the manner of using, or process of compounding the same, in such full, clear, and exact terms, as to distinguish it from all other things before known, and to enable any person, skilled in the art or science, of which it is a branch, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make, compound, and use

* Barrett v. Hall, 1 Mason, 477.

the same.

And in case of any machine, he shall fully explain the principle, and the several modes in which he has contemplated the application of the principle or character, by which it may be distinguished from other inventions." Or, more concisely, the specification must be full, clear, exact, distinguish the invention from other things, and enable an artist, skilled in the subject, to make the thing.

These requisites, it is apparent, are blended and intermixed, since it is by observing the first of these requisitions that the latter are complied with; for if the specification is full, clear, and exact, this will inform the public what the patentee alleges himself to have invented, and distinguish it from other things, and enable an artist to practise the art, or perform the process, or make the machine or composition in question. And then the specification, in order to be clear, must be sufficiently full and exact.

These requisites thus run so much into each other, in their nature and character, and again are found to be so frequently blended together in the same case, and in the same sentence, that it is difficult to treat of them separately, and yet there is so much variety and diversity among them, that they cannot be treated of together indiscriminately, without confusion. It is proposed, therefore, to arrange them in different sections, at the same time giving it to be understood that, for the above reasons, the division is not complete; since what is said of one requisite, is,