enable any person, skilled in the art or science to which it appertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make, construct, compound and use the same." This is only an express enactment of what has been the established construction of the English statute of monopolies. And, following out the spirit and principle of this rule, the cases decide that the specification must not only direct how the thing patented is to be made, used, or compounded, but must also direct the most economical and advantageous materials, construction and method for this purpose, known to the inventor, and must not mislead the person who consults it. The patent law is founded on the principle of giving the public the full benefit of the invention, which it could not do, unless the best mode of using the invention were described. "The end and meaning of the specification," says Mr. Justice Buller, "is to teach the public, after the time for which the patent is granted, what the art is, and it must put the public in possession of the secret in as ample and beneficial a way as the patentee himself uses it. If the specification, in any part of it, be materially false or defective, the patent is against law and cannot be supported. If the specification be such that mechanical men of common understanding can comprehend it, to make a machine by it, it is sufficient; but then it must be such that persons skilled in the art or science to which the invention relates may be able to make the machine by following the directions of the specification, without making any experiments, and without any new invention or addition of their own."'62 Mr. Justice Story thus states the law on this subject. "The law confers an exclusive patent right on the inventor of any thing new, and useful, as an encouragement and reward for his ingenuity, and for the expense and labor attending the invention. But this monopoly is granted for a limited term only, at the expiration of which the invention becomes the property of the public. Unless, therefore, such a specification was made as would, at all events, enable other persons, of competent skill, to construct similar machines, the advantage to the public, which the act contemplates, would be entirely lost, and its principal object would be defeated. It is not necessary, however, that the specification should contain an explanation, level with the capacities of every person, (which would, perhaps, be impossible,) but, in the language of the act (of 1793), it should be expressed in such full, clear and exact terms, that a person skilled in the art or science of which it is a branch, would be enabled to construct the patented invention."'63 62 The King v. Arkwright, Dav. Pat. Cas. 106. Per Ashurst, J. Turner v. Winter, 1 T. R. 606, and see remarks of Buller, J. in Boulton v. Bull, 2 H. Bl. 484. 63 Lowell v. Lewis, 1 Mason R. 182, and see Langdon v. De Groot, 1 Paine's R. 203, which was a patent for folding thread, and one objec And so Lord Ellenborough says, "A specification should be sufficient to enable persons of reasonably competent skill in such matters, to construct the machine."'64 It is enough if the specification is made clear by an examination of the drawings referred to in it.65 Where it was objected that the dimensions of a stay of a link of a chain cable were not given in the written specification, Abbott C. J. said to the jury, "If a drawing or figure will enable a workman of competent skill to construct the improvement, it is as good as any written improvement."66 Mr. Justice Buller remarked, in an early case, that "wherever it appears that the patentee has made a fair disclosure, I have always had a strong bias in his favor, because, in that case, he is entitled to the protection which the law gives him; but where the discovery is not fully made, the court ought to look with a very watchful eye to prevent any imposition on the public;"" and Mr. Justice Gibbs says that "a patentee who has invented a machine useful to the public, and can construct it one way more tion stated by the court is that the specification did not describe the manner of folding. 64 Harmar v. Playne, 11 East, 101. 65 See infra, s. 9. Shaw, 4 Mass. R. 1. Bloxam v. Elsee, 1 Carr. & P. 558. Earle v. "Brunton v. Hawkes, Rep. of Com. of H. of Com. 1829, App. 206. Mr. Farey's Papers. ❝7 Turner v. Winter, 1 T. R. 606. extensive in its benefit than in another, and states in his specification only that mode which would be least beneficial, reserving to himself the more beneficial mode of practising it, although he will have so far answered the patent as to describe in his specification a machine to which the patent extends, yet he will not have satisfied the law by communicating, to the public, the most beneficial mode he was then possessed of, for exercising the privilege granted to him."'68 69 A mistake or an incorrectness in what is not material, will not render the patent void. It is enough that the specification is substantially full and accurate. This is distinctly implied by Abbott, C. J. in a case already cited. It is no objection that a mistake is made by which nobody can suffer, that is, by which no person could be led into an infringement of the patent, without any such instruction on his part, while it is in force, and which will not prevent an artist from constructing the machine, by following the specification, after the patent has expired. The rules above stated have been applied in a number of cases. In the specification of Arkwright's machine to prepare cotton, silk, flax and wool for spinning, he described all the parts of it as one 68 Bovill v. Moore, Dav. Pat. Cas. 361. 69 The King v. Murray, Buller's N. P. 76, a. TO Bloxam v. Elsee, 6 B. & C. 169, supra 244; and other cases cited supra s. 3 and 5. entire instrument. He did not state, as he should have done, that the hammer, in the front of it, was only to be used in preparing flax; and on this ground, among others, his patent was set aside."1 71 The King v. Arkwright, Dav. Pat. Cas. 117. See Godson Pat. 121; opinion of Ashurst in Turner v. Winter, 1 T. R. 606; Newbury v. James, 2 Meriv. 446; Hornblower v. Boulton, 8 T. R. 100. Mr. Farey, in a note to the case of Arkwright, in the Appendix to the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons, 1829, p. 185, says, "The invention for which Mr. Arkwright took his two patents for spinning and preparing, have proved of immense value to the nation; they are universally employed for one great branch of cotton spinning, called twist, for strong hard cotton thread, and still remain nearly on the system that Mr. Arkwright himself established during the patents; also, when combined with the previous invention of Hargrave's spinning jenny, (which was done some years afterwards by Mr. Crumpton,) in what is called the mule, they form the other branch of cotton spinning for fine and soft yarn. The spinning of long wool and flax, and preparing of flax, (after the stages of combing and heckling,) are modifications of Arkwright's system; and also the preparing of short wool for woollen cloth, the spinning thereof being done by Hargrave's jennies. Of the three inventors of spinning, Hargrave, Arkwright and Crumpton, to whom the nation have owed so much, the first was persecuted, and died in the greatest poverty, amidst a population who were rising to opulence by his means. Arkwright possessed a vigor of mind to command, control and instruct working people, far beyond the talent of a mere artist or inventor, and succeeded in realizing a princely fortune by his manufactory; but his money was not gained by virtue of his invention; for the bulk of it was acquired after his patent was set aside; and others who had invented nothing, but merely copied what he did, made immense fortunes by spinning, as well as himself. Crumpton, whose combination of Hargrave's and Arkwright's inventions in the mule, has much more than doubled the national advantages conferred by his predecessors, was, like Hargrave, ruined in his circumstances, and languished in poverty during a long life, in the very town which had grown up from insignificance to wealthy importance by the practice of his invention. In 1812, his case reached the knowledge of Parliament, and £5000 reward was given him; but it came too late to have the effect of removing the established impression, that an inventor is almost certain to be ruined, even if his invention succeeds, and proves ever so valuable to others." |