or commodity of any forfeiture, penalty, or sum of money that is or shall be due by any statute, before judgment thereupon had; and all proclamations, inhibitions, restraints, warrants of assistance, and all other matters and things whatsoever, any way tending to the instituting, erecting, strengthening, furthering, or countenancing the same, or any of them, are altogether con trary to the laws of the realm, and so are and shall be utterly void and of none effect, and in no wise to be put in use or execution." The 6th section, however, provides, “ that any declaration before mentioned, shall not extend to any letters patent, and grants of privilege, for the term of fourteen years, or under, hereafter to be made, of the sole working or making of any manner of new manufactures within this realm, to the true and first inventor and inventors of such manufactures, which others, at the time of making such letters patent and grants, shall not use, so as also they be not contrary to the law, nor mischievous to the ste, by raising prices of commodities at home, or hurt of trade, or generally inconvenient; the said fourteen years to be accounted from the date of the first letters patent, or grant of such privilege hereafter to be made, but that the same shall be of such force as they should be if this act had never been made, and none other." It is under this last section, that patents for new and useful inventions are now granted in England; and by a proviso, or condition, always inserted in every patent, the patentee is bound particularly to describe and ascertain the nature of his invention, and in what manner the same is to be constructed or made, by an instrument in writing, under his hand and seal, and to cause the same to be enrolled in the court of chancery within a specified time. Harmar v. Playne, 11 East, 101. Boulton v. Bull, 2 H. Bl. 463. Hornblower v. Boulton, 8 T. R. 95. 2 Bl. Com. 407. note by Christian, (7.) This instrument is usually termed the specification of the invention; and all such instruments are preserved in an office for public inspection. Upon the construction of the British patent act, taken in connection with the conditions inserted in the letters patent, a great variety of decisions have been made.—1. As the statute contains no restrictions confining the grants to British subjects, it is every day's practice to grant patents to foreigners, and no such patent has ever been brought into judicial doubt.—2. A patent can be granted only for a thing new; but it may be granted to the first inventor, if the invention be new in England, though the thing was practised beyond sea before; for the sta tute speaks of new manufactures in this realm; so that if it be new here, it is within the statute, and whether learned by travel or study, is the same thing. Edgeberry v. Stevens, 2 Salk. 447. Hauk. P. C. b. 1. ch. 79. and see Noy. 182, 183.3. The language of the statute is new manufacture; but the terms are used in an enlarged sense, as equivalent to new device or contrivance, and apply not only to things made, but to the practice of making. Under things made we may class, in the first place, new compositions of things, such as manufactures in the ordinary sense of the word; secondly, all nechanical inven tions, whether made to produce old or new effects; for a new piece of mechanism is certainly a thing made. Under the prac tice of making, we may class all new artificial manners of operating with the hand, or with instruments in common usc, new processes in any art, producing effects useful to the public. When the effect produced is some new substance, or composi tion, it would seem that the privilege of the sole working, or making, cught to be for such new substance, or composition, without regard to the mechanism or process, by which it has been produced, which, though perhaps also new, will be only useful as producing the new substance. When the effect produced is no new substance, or composition of things, the patent can only be for the mechanism, if new mechanism is used; or for the process, if it be a new method of operating, with or without old mechanism, by which the effect is produced. Per Eyre, Ch. J. in Boulton v. Bull, 2 H. Bl. 463. 492. and Lawrence, J. in Hornblower v. Boulton, 8 T. R. 65. 106. A patent therefore, under certain circumstances, may be good for a method, as well as for an engine or machine. Id. and 8 T. R. 95. 106. Rex v. Cutler, 1 Starkie's N. P. R. 354.—1. A patent cannot be for a mere principle, properly so called; that is, for an elementary truth. But the word principle is often used in a more laxsense, to signify constituent parts, peculiar structure or process; and in specifications it is generally used in this latter sense; and in this view, it may well be the subject of a patent. Id. 5. It was formerly considered that a patent could not be for an improvement; (3 Inst. 183.)but that opinion has been long since exploded; and it is now held that a patent may well be for a rew improvement. Harmer v. Playne, 14 Ves. 130. Ex Parle Fox, 1 Ves. & Beame, 67. Boulton v. Bull, 2 H. Bl. 463. 488. 8 T. R. 95. Bull. N. P. 77. 6. A patent must be of such manufacture or process, as no other did, at the time of making the letters patent, use for though it were nowly invented, yet if any other did use it, at the time of making the letters patent, or grant of the privilege, it is declared void by the act. 3 Inst. 184. And In a very recent case of a patent for a new mode of making verdigris. one of the objections was, that the invention was in public sale by the patentee, before the grant of the patent; and GIBBS, Ch. J. on that occasion said, "with respect to this objection, the question is somewhat new. Some things are obvious as son as they are made public; of others, the scientific world may possess itself by analysis; some inventions almost baffle discovery. But to entitle a man to a patent, the invention must be new to the world. The public sale of that which it afterwards made the subject of a patent, though sold by the inventer only, makes the patent void. It is in evidence, that a great quantity was sold in the course of four months, before the patent was obtained.” And if the jury were satisfied of that fact, his lordship added, "that he thought the patent void." Wood ▾. Zimmar, 1 Holt's N. P. Rep. 58.-7. The invention must not only be new, but useful; for if it I e contrary to law, or mischievous, or hurtful to trace, or generally inconvenient, it is, by the terms of the statute, void. 3 ust 184.-8 A patent can legally be granted only to the first and true inventor; for such are the descript ive terms of the statute. 3 Inst. 184. But if the original inventor has confined the invention to his closet, and the pub. lic be not acquainted with it, a -econd inventor, who makes it public, is entitled to a patent. Boulton v. Bull, 2 H. B. 463. and Dolland's patent, cited 2 H. Bt. 470, 487,-9. The patent, must not be mose extensive than the invention; therefore, if the intention consist in an add tion, or improvement only, and the patent is for the whole machine, or manufacture, it is void. Buller's N. P. 76. Boulton v. Bull 2 H. Bl. 463, and cases there cited. The King v. Else, 11 East. 109. note. Harmer v. Playne, 11 East. 101 S. C. 14 Ves. 130. Therefore, where a patent was for the exclusive liberty of making lace composed of silk and cotton thread mixed, not of any particular mode of making it; and it was proved that silk and cotton thread were before mixed on the same frame for lace, in some mode or other, though not like the plaintiff's, the patent was held void, as being more extensive than the invention. The King v. Else, 11 East., 109. note. A person may obtain a patent for a machine, consisting of an entirely new combination of parts, although all the parts may have been separately used in former machines; and the patent may correctly set out the whole as the invention of the patentee. But if a combination of a certain number of those parts have previously existed, up to a certain point, in former machines, the patentee merely adding other combinations, the patent should comprehend such improvements only. Bevill v. Moore, 2 Marshall's R. 211. 10. If a person has invented an improvement upon an existing patented machine, he is entitled to a patent for his improvement; but he cannot use the original machine, until the patent for it has expired. Ex parte Fox, 1 Ves. & Beame's R. 67.-11. Although the specification is not annexed to a patent in England, and the patent contains a concise description only of the invention, yet, as there is a proviso in the patent, requiring the enrolment of a specification in chancery, within a specified time, and in default making the patent void, the patent is always construed in connection with the specification, and the latter is deemed a part of the patent, at least for the purpose of ascertaining the nature and extent of the invention claimed by the patentee. Boulton v. Bull, 2 H. Bl. 463. Hornblower v. Boulton, 8 T. R. 95.-12, Care should be taken that the specification comports with the patent; for otherwise it would not sustain the grant. For where a patent was obtained for an improved mode of lighting cities, it was held by LE BLANC, J. that it was not supported by a specification, describing an improved jamp. The patent ought to have been for an improved street lamp. Lord Cochrane v. Smethrust, 1 Starkies' N. P. R. 205. No technical words, however, are necessary to explain the subVOL. III. с - ject of a patent; but the court will construe the terms of the patent and of the specification in a liberal manner, and give them such a meaning as best comports with the apparent intention of the patentee. Hornblower v. Boulton, 8 T. R. 95Boulton v. Bull, 2 H. Bl. 463. Therefore, where the patent was "for a method of lessening the consumption of steam and fuel in fire engines," one objection was, that the patent was for a philosophical principle only, neither organized, nor capable of being organized, whereas it ought to have been for a formed machine, a second objection was, that if it was a patent for a formed machine, it was for the whole machine, when the invention was only an improvement, or addition, to an existing machine: But the court of king's bench, on examining the specification, were of opinion, that both the objections were unfounded, although the terms of the specification were so doubtful and obscure as to have produced a division of opinion in the court of common pleas. Hornblower v. Boulton, 8 T. R. 95. Boulton v. Bull, 2 H. Bl. 163. Both of these cases were very elaborately discussed, and contain more learning-on the subject of patents then can be found in any other adjudi cations, and are, therefore, deserving of the most accurate at tention of every lawyer. In both of them all the judges agreed that a mere mistake in ternis, or in the correct sense of words, would not vitiate a patent, if the court could give a reasonable construction to the whole specification. Mr. Justice HEATH said, "when a mode of doing a thing is referred to something permanent, it is properly termed an engine; when to something fugitive, a method." "If method and machinery had been used by the patentee as convertible terms, and the same consequences would result from both, it might be too strong to say that the inventor should lose the benefit of this patent by the misappli cation of this term." "Method is a principle reduced to prac tice; it is, in the present instance, the general application of a principle to an old machine." "A patent for an improvement of a machine, and a patent for an improved machine, are, in substance, the same. The same specification would serve for both patents; the new organization of parts is the same in both." Mr. Justice Roox, said, "a new invented mé |