copyrights and could not be protected under the copyright laws. In the case of Baker vs. Seldon, Justice Bradley delivering the opinion of the court, said:

"The description of an art in a book entitled to the benefit of copyright lays no foundation for an exclusive claim to the art itself. The description alone can be protected by copyright. The art can only be secured, if it can be secured at all, by letters patent.

"A work on the subject of bookkeeping, explanatory either of old systems or of an entirely new system, considered as a book conveying information on the subject and containing detailed explanations of the art, is the subject of copyright, but the use of the peculiar systems of bookkeeping described can not be protected thereby.

"The conclusion to which we have come is, that blank account books are not the subject of copyright; and that the mere copyright of Seldon's book did not confer upon him the exclusive right to make and use account books ruled and arranged as designated by him and described and illustrated in said book."

Very many cases are presented to the Patent Office for patent protection, which, prior to the decisions referred to would no doubt have been sent to the Library of Congress for copyright.

The office and the courts of the country have had difficulty in determining to which statutory class such patents belong.

In the case of Munson vs. City of New York, 1888, C. D., 253, the patentee claimed

1st. "The preserving, filing, and verifying of bonds and coupons, certificates and all similar documents by the means and in the manner substantially as herein set forth."

2d. "The book or register constructed and used as and for the purposes set forth."

Mr. Justice Gray of the United States Supreme Court delivered the opinion of the court, and in it, said:

"If upon the face of the specification this could be considered as an art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter within the meaning of the patent laws (upon which we express no opinion), etc.'

indicating that the United States Supreme Court did not attempt to classify the invention then before it.

The court in the case of the Cincinnati Traction Co. vs. Pope, hereinafter referred to, said:

"We think the device (the street car transfer) should be classed as an article and thus a 'manufacture' within the Statute."

In still other cases where the claims were for means, tickets, receipts, etc., the courts have explicitly stated that they did not decide whether the invention was an improvement in an art or one for a machine.

In examining an application in this art as in all

others

"The office should not overlook the fact that it must be shown that invention was exercised in producing the article or machine, and that it is not every person who has made a new or useful thing who is entitled to a patent. It is not sufficient that an applicant shall have made a new article or machine; but he must have made an invention or discovery. It must be the result of the exercise of the inventive faculty, not simply of the mechanical faculty." Ex parte Devin, 450 O. G., 709; 1888 C. D., 70.

It will be apparent that very many of the alleged inventions do not measure up to the tests and requisites of invention as defined in the patent statutes, rules, and decisions and as applied in the United States Patent Office. Many of these cases involve subject-matter new and useful and exhibit a high degree of mere ingenuity, but not patentable invention, and in the opinion of

many attorneys as expressed to the writer of this paper, are entitled to some scrt of protection, as much at least, if not more, than it was supposed they used to derive under the copyright law. I personally am inclined to agree with them to some extent, if a provision of law might be enacted without injury to the present patent system which would give this protection and at the same time would not take from the public any rights which it now enjoys, and would not limit the exercise of his craft and skill and trade by the worker in these lines. It is difficult, however, to see how this can be accomplished, and unless it is, it is clear no protection under our theory of patent protection or monopoly on this class of cases can be obtained.

Printed matter, which it may be said is merely paper or other suitable substance bearing lines and indicia on it produced by printing or writing, does not, of course, of itself do work or of itself change the physical condition of any material object, but it is still very useful and necessary in carrying on the great work and activities of the world in many ways, especially in carrying on business.

METHODS AND SYSTEMS OF DOING BUSINESS.

Methods of bookkeeping, systems of transacting business, recording, tabulating, and the like are not regarded by the office of the courts as inventions nor subjects for letters patents, as indicated by Ex parte Abraham, 1869 C. D., 59; Ex parte Berolzheimer, 1870 C. D., 33; Ex parte Bierce, 1877 C. D., 47; Ex parte Moeser, 123 O. G., 655, and others for the reason that they produce no physical results proceeding directly from their operation.

Robinson on Patents, 1890 edition, Vol. 1, page 249, defines an "art" as follows:

"But though an art embraces so wide a field of inventive skill, it includes only such operations as are capable of producing physical effects. Every invention, when applied according to the design of its inventor, must accomplish some change in the character or condition of material objects."

The settled and accepted definition of the term "art" is to be found in United States Supreme Court decisionsCorning vs. Burden, 15 Howard, 252; Tilghman vs. Proctor, 102 U. S., 707; Cochran vs. Diener, 94 U. S., 780; Risdon vs. Medart, 71 O. G., 751; Boyden vs. Westinghouse, 83 O. G., 1067, and Expanded Metal Co. vs. Bradford, 137 Fed., 870; but it may well be questioned whether the United States Supreme Court has ever stated the entire range of meaning belonging to the term "art." It may be questioned whether claim 5 of the Bell patent sustained by the United States Supreme Court covered a process such as clearly defined in the above decisions. Was there a change "effected in the nature of any substance by the art set forth in the claim? It is certainly difficult to show that any change in the nature of the impulse took place during transmission or reproduction. (Knight's Patent Office Manual.)

It may, however, be stated that whether or not in the future any definition of an art including a method, process, or system of doing business which is patentable may be laid down, it has not yet been done by any competent authority and as stated by Examiner-in-Chief Hodges, in Ex parte Abraham, 1869 C. D., "it is contrary to the spirit of the patent law as construed by the office for many years to grant patents for methods or analogous systems of bookkeeping," etc.

ARTICLE OR MANUFACTURE.

Inventions of this type are of several kinds. There are those involving merely a piece of paper sometimes having tabs, ruptured fibres, etc., provided with written or printed lines and indicia upon one or both surfaces; those which include the above elements and weakened tearing lines wholly or partially across them and those embracing a plurality of the above pieces of paper in various alleged combinations.

In determining patentability of the invention claimed as an article or manufacture, it was held by Commissioner

Marble in Ex parte Lee, 1880 C. D., 174, in which the invention claimed was as follows:

Claim 1. "The combination of two stubs or counterparts with the contract ticket substantially as described."

Claim 2. "The arrangement of the two stubs relatively to the coupons and the list of terminal stations in the manner and for the purpose specified."

That

"The patentable features of a railway or other ticket like those of any other substantive thing must depend upon peculiarities of mechanical construction."

"The printed matter upon a ticket is nothing more than an arbitrary direction as to how such ticket is to be used, and can have no bearing upon the patentability of the ticket itself."

The Hawes patent No. 63,889, for a hotel register, in which the claim read as follows was held valid:

"A hotel register book with the margin of its leaves occupied by advertisements, substantially as described." Hawes vs. Washburne et al., 50 O. G., 491.

In Library Bureau vs. Macy, 148 F. R., 380, in discussing patents Nos. 623,857 and 624,597, the court held that the arrangement of color signals was not invention but that the system of tabs upon the cards did involve invention.

In the case of Mitchell vs. International Tailoring Co., 170 F. R., 91, the claim, which specifically describes the article, reads as follows, and was sustained by the

court:

"1. The herein described advertising device comprising a card-board sheet of substantially commercial letter paper form and size, scored transversely to form upper and lower flaps to fold upon the intermediate portion, the entire inner side of said sheet being adapted to bear a