land."

66

propelling "either vessels in the water or carriages on the He claimed (1) "substituting for the crank in the reciprocating engine a grooved cylinder, operating in "the manner described, by means of its connection with "the piston-rod," (2) a certain "spiral propelling wheel," and (3) "the application of the revolving vertical shaft to "the turning of a capstan on the deck of a vessel." The machine first claimed was not confined, in its use, to a boat or sailing-vessel; it could be made use of in any steamengine. It was objected, that these distinct inventions could not be covered in the same patent. The judge said, after reviewing former cases, on this point: "The principle "seems to be, that the inventions should be capable of being used in connection, and to subserve a common "end, though their actual employment together does not seem to be required to sustain the validity of the patent in which they may be united. Accordingly, the wrong"ful use of either separate machine is a violation of the "patent-right pro tanto. We think the specification in "this case shows that these three separate machines were "contrived with the view of being used conjointly, and as "conducing to a common end, in the better propelling "and navigating a ship; and, in our opinion, their capability of being used separately and independent of each "other, does not prevent their being embraced in one patent."1

66

66

66

This patent came before the Supreme Court, in 1859, and, with reference to the objection made, "that one set "of letters-patent for more than one invention is not tol"erated in law," the court said: "But grant that such is "the result when two or more inventions are entirely separate and independent, though this is doubtful on

66

1 Emerson vs. Hogg, 2 Blatchford, 1.

"principle, yet it is well settled, in the cases formerly cited, "that a patent for more than one invention is not void, if "they are connected in their design and operation. This "last is clearly the case here. They all, here, relate to "the propelling of carriages and vessels by steam, and "only differ, as they must on water, from what they are on “land; a paddle-wheel being necessary in the former, and "not in the latter, and one being used in the former, "which is likewise claimed to be an improved one. All

66

are a part of one combination when used in the water, "and differing only as the parts must when used to propel "in a different element."1

It is clear, that any number of separable inventions, capable of co-operating toward a common end, as well as several improvements of different parts of a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, are claimable in one and the same patent; and it is equally clear, on principle, that a process, a machine, and a product, concurring to a common result, are properly claimable in the same patent.

The Patent Office, however, for the sake of convenience in examining inventions by classes, at the time of this writing, refuses to grant such patents. It requires that a separate patent shall be taken for each distinct machine, process, manufacture, or composition of matter, even for distinct improvements upon the same structure or machine. The Office refuses to permit a pulley at the top of a window-curtain and a cord-strainer connected to the pulley by a cord, to be covered in the same patent. It would seem, from the cases quoted, that a United States court would hardly sustain the action of the Office.

1 Hogg vs. Emerson, 11 Howard, 587.

Joinder of Inventors.

Whenever an invention is

the joint product of different minds, a joint patent must be applied for by all the inventors, and if a patent for such an invention is taken by any number of such inventors less than the whole number, such patent is void. The invention is essentially a product of mind and not of the hands, and he who suggests an essential feature or features of an art, machine, manufacture, or compound, is the inventor thereof, although another person may embody such suggestions in tangible materials.

It is often difficult to determine whether an invention is joint or single; but, when two or more persons are engaged together in the making of an invention, and an invention results as the effect of their joint consultations, such invention is joint, and the courts will not go into all the minutia of the case, although, and of course, one or the other of the persons must have been the first to specify this or that part, or the whole of the invention, in words, or by drawings, or by a model, or by actual reduction to practice. When, however, one person is clearly the inventor of a distinct part of a device, and another person is clearly the inventor of another distinct part of such device, distinct patents may he taken by each for his part, though a joint patent would, probably, be valid.

When a patent has been granted for an invention alleged to be joint, no evidence short of that which is conclusive and indisputable, will be held to prove such invention to be other than joint.1

Scientific and Skilled Aid to Inventors. We may as well inquire, at this point, to what extent a person, who has conceived the main principle or characteristic of

1 Stearns vs. Barrett, 1 Mason, 152. Barett vs. Hall, 1 Mason, 472. Thomas vs. Weeks, 2 Paine, 103.

an invention, is entitled to employ the services of scientific men and skilled workmen in putting his ideas into practice, without violating his right to a patent for the resultant product.

66

Upon this point, Chief-Justice Taney, speaking for the Supreme Court, said, in a case where Morse's telegraph patent was under consideration: "Neither can the inquiries "he made, or the information or advice he received from men of science, in the course of his researches, impair "his right to the character of an inventor. No invention can possibly be made, consisting of a combination of "different elements of power, without a thorough knowl"edge of the properties of each of them, and of the mode " in which they operate on each other; and it can make no “difference in this respect, whether he derives his informa"tion from books or from conversation with men skilled in "the science. If it were otherwise, no patent in which a "combination of different elements is used, could be ob"tained; for no man ever made such an invention without "having first obtained this information, unless it was dis"covered by some fortunate accident. And it is evident, "that such an invention as the electro-magnetic telegraph "could never have been brought into action without it; "for a very high degree of scientific knowledge and the "nicest skill in the mechanic arts are combined in it, and were both necessary to bring it into successful operation. “And the fact that Morse sought and obtained the necessary information and counsel from the best sources, and "acted upon it, neither impairs his rights as an inventor, 1 nor detracts from his merits.'

66

66

The following excerpt from the decision of Judge Betts, in another case, gives the facts and the law applied to them:

1 O'Reilly vs. Morse, 15 Howard, 62, p. III.

"It is contended that Berry was the inventor, and not the "plaintiffs; which position, if established, would be a good "ground to dissolve the injunction. The defendants lay "before the court the declarations of Berry, in connection "with his working without any draft, design, or model "before him, which, the defendants insist, proves him to "be the inventor. But, on the other hand, Mr. Kelsey “details very minutely the suggestions he made, his super"intendence, his suggesting alterations in a design got up, "his disapproving that, and the adoption of his views in "the design now patented. And Mr. Berry gives his own "account of the matter, and explains the declarations "attributed to him, as referring to his working without a copy before him, and to the design being an original "and not a copy. He does not intimate that he did not “receive suggestions, alterations, and directions from Mr. 'Kelsey, which were carried out in this design. To con“stitute an inventor, it is not necessary he should have the “manual skill and dexterity to make the drafts. If the “ideas are furnished by him, for producing the result "aimed at, he is entitled to avail himself of the mechan"ical skill of others, to carry out practically his contriv66 ance. Here the devising of the pattern, in this sense, "appears to have been by the plaintiffs."1

66

66

66

From these and other cases, it appears that, when a person has in his mind the main features of an invention, or has grasped the general principles upon which it is to operate, he is entitled to the aid, counsels, and experiments of scientific men, and to the efforts and suggestions of skilled mechanics, in reducing his invention to practice, and in embodying it in tangible materials, without forfeiting his right to the title of inventor. In one, and

1 Sparkman vs. Higgins, 1 Blatchford, 205: 1846.