s. c. 3 Biss. 52; s. c. 4 Fish. 584; Heald v. Rice, 104 U. S. 737; s. c. 21 O. G. 1443; s. c. 13 Pac. L. R. 33; Union Sugar Refinery v. Mathiessen, 2 Fish. 600; s. c. 3 Cliff, 639; Washing Machine Co. v. Lincoln, 4 Fish. 379; Graham v. Mason, 5 Fish. 1; s. c. 4 Cliff. 88; Carter v. Baker, 4 Fish. 404; s. c. 1 Saw. 512; King v. Louisville Cement Co., 6 Fish. 336; s. c. 4 0. G. 181; Gorham v. Mixter, 1 Am. L. J. 539; Cochrane v. Deener, 11 O. G. 637; s. c. 94 U. S. 780; Odorless Excav. Co. v. McCauley, 2 Ban & Ard. 570; Putnam v. Hutchinson, 12 Fed. Rep. 131; Bickford v. Laporte, 5 Ban & Ard. 349; Dederick v. Cassell, 20 O. G. 1233; s. c. 9 Fed. Rep. 306; Graham v. McCormick, 10 Biss. 39; s. c. 21 O. G. 1533; s. c. 5 Ban & Ard. 244; s. c. 11 Fed. Rep. 859; Clough v. Barker, 106 U. S. 166; Turrell v. Spaeth, 14 O. G. 377; s. c. 3 Ban & Ard. 458; Adams v. Moline Wagon Works Co., 16 Fed. Rep. 236; Sands v. Wardwell, 3 Cliff. 277; American Whip Co. v. Lombard, 14 O. G. 900; s. c. 4 Cliff. 495; s. c. 3 Ban & Ard. 598; Edgarton v. Breck, 5 Ban & Ard. 42; Imhaeuser v. Buerk, 101 U. S. 674; s. c. 17 O. G. 795; s. c. 1 Ban & Ard. 337; Ready Roofing Co. v. Taylor, 15 Blatch. 95; s. c. 3 Ban & Ard. 368; Babcock v. Judd, 17 O. G. 1351; s. c. 5 Ban & Ard. 127; s. c. 1 Fed. Rep. 408; Holly v. Vergennes Machine Co., 18 Blatch. 327; s. c. 18 O. G. 1177; s. c. 4 Fed. Rep. 74; Willimantic L. Co. v. Clark Thread Co., 4 Ban & Ard. 133; Knapp v. Joubert, 19 Blatch. 148; s. c. 7 Fed. Rep. 219; Clough v. Manuf. Co., 106 U. S. 178; s. c. 22 O. G. 2157.

Mere Mechanical Skill.

In order to determine whether the change in the arrangement and construction of an existing machine is to be considered as a substantial change or not, it must be ascertained and determined whether the change is the result of mechanical skill worked out by mechanical devices—of a knowledge that belongs to that department of labor, or whether the change is the result of mind, of genius, of invention in which there is something more than mere mechanical skill and ingenuity. A change in the arrangement and construction is not substantial unless there is embodied in it, over and beyond the skill of the mechanic, that inventive element of the mind which is to be found in every machine or improvement that is the proper subject of a patent. Le Roy v. Tatham, 2 Blatch. 474; s. c. 14 How. 156; Case v. Brown, 2 Fish. 268; s. c. 2 Wall. 320; 1 Biss. 382; Seymour v. McCormick, 2 Blatch. 240; s. c. 16 How. 480 0; Gibson v. Harris, 1 Blatch. 167; Hamilton v. Ives, 6 Fish. 244; s. c. 3 O. G. 30; Blanchard v. Beers, 2 Blatch. 411; Union Paper Bag Co. v. Nixon, 6 Fish. 402; s. c. 4 O. G. 31; Gibson v. Van Dresar, 1 Blatch. 532; Birdsell v. McDonald, 6 O. G. 682; s. c. 1 Ban & Ard. 165; Forbes v. Barstow Stove Co., 2 Cliff. 379; Coffin v. Ogden, 3 Fish. 640; s. c. 7 Blatch. 61; Goodyear v. Honsinger, 3 Fish. 147; s. c. 2 Biss. 1; Potter v. Schenck, 3 Fish. 82; s. c. 1 Biss. 515; Thayer v. Wales, 5 Fish. 130; s. c. 9 Blatch. 170; Renwick v. Pond, 5 Fish. 569; s. c. 10 Blatch. 39; 2 O. G. 392.

If a person has an invention, and another person looking at the description of it can, from his knowledge of the subject, pass to the other thing that is used without any invention, then the one is substantially the same as the other. It is not necessary that every unskilled person shall see how he passes; but if a person skilled and competent in the art is able, by looking at the description with care, to see that the result may be attained in a different mode or in a different manner, and it is done in that different mode or in that different manner by the use of the knowledge which he has in the art, that would not be a new invention or substantially different from the original. Johnson v. Root, 1 Fish. 351.

The patentee is protected from obvious modes readily adopted without invention for accomplishing the same end. Union Paper Bag Co. v. Nixon, 6 Fish. 402; s. c. 4 O. G. 31.

The mere exercise of skill, ingenuity, thought, and experiment, in the production of an article, is not sufficient to obviate the charge of infringement, for it may be that they would produce an article substantially the same, though formally different, or might be employed to prevent a similitude in form, although the principle be the same, and so evade the patent. Many v. Sizer, 1 Fish. 17.

Practice and experience in the working of a machine may lead to highly beneficial modifications of the form. This is the natural and usual result in the operation of machinery newly invented and constructed. It requires time and experience to bring it to perfection. But the right of the inventor does not depend upon the questions whether the machine is more or less perfect, or whether slight modifications in the arrangement of the machinery, or in the finish of the parts composing it, may or may not better accomplish the end sought to be attained; but upon the question whether the machinery constructed as described in the patent will or will not accomplish the end practically and usefully in the way pointed out. If it will, the inventor is entitled to the protection which the government has granted him; and any one using the principle thus embodied is guilty of an infringement, however he may have perfected the machinery by superior skill in the mechanical arrangement and construction of the parts. Such perfecting is but the skill of the mechanic, not the genius of the inventor. Kinsman v. Parkhurst, 1 Blatch. 488; s. c. 18 How. 289; Ie Roy v. Tatham, 2 Blatch. 474; s. c. 14 How. 156; Tracy v. Torry, 2 Blatch. 275; Wilbur v. Beecher, 2 Blatch. 132.

A patentee is entitled to use all modifications resulting from experience in the use of his invention which do not involve any new or further invention. Decker v. Grote, 6 Fish. 143; s. c. 10 Blatch. 331; 3 O. G. 65.

The patentee is entitled to the exclusive use of the mechanical organization, device or means for all the uses and purposes to which it can be applied to every function, power and capacity of his patented machine or device-without regard to which he supposed originally it was most applicable. McComb v. Brodie, 5 Fish. 384; s. c. 1 Woods 153; 2 O. G. 117.

1

When an Infringement.

The inquiry is not whether the principle of the two articles is the same. If the principle is the same, and the effect is similar in both, in contemplation of law they are identical. Buerk v. Imhausen, 5 O. G. 752; Hike v. P. & W. R. R. Co., 6 O. G. 575; Kursheedt v. Werner, 12 Blatch. 530; s. c. 8 O. G. 146; s. c. 2 Ban & Ard. 81; Wicks v. Stevens, 2 Woods 310; s. c. 2 Ban & Ard. 318; G. & B. Manuf. Co. v. Tirrell, 12 Blatch. 144; s. c. 8 O. G. 2; s. c. 1 Ban & Ard. 315; King v. Werner, 12 Blatch. 270; s. c. 8 O. G. 361; s. c. 1 Ban & Ard. 386; R. & E. Manuf. Co. v. P. & F. C. Manuf. Co., 12 Blatch. 36; s. c. 7 O. G. 383; Union Paper Bag Co. v. Newell, 6 Fish. 582; s. c. 11 Blatch. 379; 5 0. G. 459; Aultman v. Holley, 6 Fish. 534; s. c. 11 Blatch. 317; 5 O. G. 3; Bigelow v. Matthews, 7 Blatch. 77; McMillin v. Barclay, 5 Fish. 189; s. c. 4 Brews. 275; McComb v. Brodie, 5 Fish. 384; s. c. 1 Woods 153; 20. G. 117; Brooks v. Bicknell, 3 McLean 250; s. c. 2 Robb 118; Blanchard v. Putnam, 3 Fish. 186; s. c. 8 Wall. 420; 2 Bond 84; Latta v. Shawk, 1 Fish. 465; s. c. 1 Bond 259; Doubleday v. Sherman, 3 Fish. 369; Stuart v. Shantz, 6 Fish. 35; s. c. 2 O. G. 524; 9 Phila. 376; Buerk v. Valentine, 5 Fish. 366; s. c. 9 Blatch. 479; 2 O. G. 295; Jenkins v. Johnson, 5 Fish. 433; s. c. 9 Blatch. 516; Marsh v. Seymour, 97 U. S. 348; s. c. 13 O. G. 723 ; s. c. 6 Fish. 115 ; s. c. 2 O. G. 675; 9 Phila. 380; Baldwin v. Schultz, 5 Fish. 75; s. c. 9 Blatch. 494; 2 O. G. 315 ; Parker v. Haworth, 4 McLean 370; s. c. 2 Robb 725; Potter v. Davis Sewing Machine Co., 3 Fish. 472; Smith v. Pearce, 2 McLean 176; s. c. 2 Robb 13; Harwood v. Mill River Co., 3 Fish. 526; McComb v. Beard, 6 Fish. 254; s. c. 10 Blatch. 350; 3 O. G. 33; Sarven v. Hall, 6 Fish. 495; s. c. 11 Blatch. 295; 4 O. G. 666; Barclay v. Thayer, 12 Blatch. 109; s. c. 6 O. G. 2; s. c. 1 Ban & Ard. 267; Woolcocks v. Many, 5 Fish. 72; s. c. 9 Blatch. 139; Wheeler v. Clipper Co., 6 Fish. 1; s. c. 10 Blatch. 181; 2 O. G. 442; Black v. Thorne, 5 Fish. 550; s. c. 10 Blatch. 66; 2 O. G. 388; Sloat v. Patton, 1 Fish. 154; Ormsbee v. Wood, 3 Fish. 372; Kidd v. Spence, 4 Fish. 37; Hawes v. Washburne, 5 O. G. 491; King v. Mandelbaum, 4 Fish. 577; s. c. 8 Blatch. 468; Tremaine v. Hitchcock, 23 Wall. 518; s. c. 7 O. G. 1055; s. c. 8 Blatch. 440; s. c. 4 Fish. 508; Corliss v. W. & W. Manuf. Co., 2 Fish. 199; Doubleday v. Sherman, 3 Fish. 371; Kendrick v. Emmons, 6 Fish. 462; s. c. 1 Holmes 334; 4 O. G. 398; Westlake v. Cartter, 6 Fish. 519; s. c. 4 O. G. 636; Seymour v. McCormick, 3 Blatch. 209; s. c. 19 How. 96; La Baw v. Hawkins, 6 O. G. 724 ; s. c. 1 Ban & Ard. 428; Knox v. Loweree, 6 O. G. 802; s. c. 1 Ban & Ard. 589; Weston v. Nash, 1 Holmes 488; s. c. 7 O. G. 1096; s. c. 2 Ban & Ard. 40; Hartshorne v. Almy, 1 Holmes 493 ; s. c. 8 O. G. 94; s. c. 2 Ban & Ard. 46; Stover v. Halsted, 13 Blatch. 95; s. c. 8 O. G. 558; s. c. 2 Ban & Ard. 98; Magic Ruffle Co. v. Elm City Co., 13 Blatch. 151; s. c. 8 O. G. 773; s. c. 2 Ban & Ard. 152; Schillinger v. Gunther, 11 O. G. 831; s. c. 14 Blatch. 152; s. c. 2 Ban & Ard. 544; N. Y. Rubber Co. v. Chaskel, 9 O. G. 923; Earle v. Harlow, 9 O. G. 1018; s. c. 2 Ban & Ard. 264; Dal

ton v. Nelson, 13 Blatch. 357; s. c. 9 O. G. 1112; s. c. 2 Ban & Ard.
225; Pickering v. Phillips, 10 O. G. 420; s. c. 4 Cliff. 383; s. c. 2 Ban
& Ard. 417; Tucker v. Tucker Manuf. Co., 10 O. G. 464; s. c. 4 Cliff.
397;
2 Ban & Ard. 401; Collender v. Came, 4 Cliff. 393; s. c. 10 O. G.
467; s. c. 2 Ban & Ard. 412; Rubber C. H. T. Co. v. Welling, 97 U. S.
7; s. c. 13 0. G. 727; s. c. 7 O. G. 608; s. c. 1 Ban & Ard. 282;
Stevens v. Pritchard, 4 Cliff. 417; s. c. 10 O. G. 505; s. c. 2 Ban & Ard.
390; Holbrook v. Small, 10 O. G. 508; s. c. 2 Ban & Ard. 396; Blake
v. Robertson, 94 U. S. 728; s. c. 11 O. G. 877; s. c. 6 O. G. 297; s. c.
11 Blatch. 237; s. c. 6 Fish. 509; Olcott v. Hawkins, 2 Am. L. J. 317;
Whipple v. Baldwin Manuf. Co., 4 Fish. 29; Whipple v. Middlesex Co.,
4 Fish. 41; Carter v. Baker, 4 Fish. 404; s. c. 1 Saw. 512; Parham v.
Sewing Machine Co., 4 Fish. 468; Henderson v. Cleveland Stove Co., 12
O. G. 94; s. c. 2 Ban & Ard. 604; Adams v. Joliet Manuf. Co., 12 O.
G. 91; s. c. 3 Ban & Ard. 1; Foye v. Nichols, 22 O. G. 2240; s. c. 13
Fed. Rep. 125; Frost v. Marcus, 13 Fed. Rep. 88; Welling v. La Bau, 12
Fed. Rep. 875; Tibbals v. Daby, 11 Fed. Rep. 903; Ben & B. Manuf.
Co. v. Hollister, 5 Ban & Ard. 136; s. c. 4 Fed. Rep. 83; Franz P. Knit-
ting M. Co. v. Bickford, 18 O. G. 734; Plimpton v. Winslow, 5 Ban &
Ard. 563; s. c. 3 Fed. Rep. 333; Kimball v. Hess, 15 Fed. Rep. 393;
Theberath v. R. & C. H. T. Co., 5 Ban & Ard. 584; 3 Fed. Rep. 151; N.
Y. C. P. Co. v. Wilson, 2 Fed. Rep. 904; Standard Measuring M. Co. v.
Teague, 15 Fed. Rep. 390; McDonald v. Sidenberg, 18 O. G. 193; Fore-
hand v. Porter, 15 Fed. Rep. 256; Tyler v. Welch, 18 Blatch. 209; s. c.
17 O. G. 1508; s. c. 5 Ban & Ard. 11; s. c. 5 Fed. Rep. 636; Roberts v.
Schreiber, 18 O. G. 125; s. c. 5 Ban & Ard. 591; s. c. 2 Fed. Rep. 855;
Evory v. Candee, 5 Ban & Ard. 435; s. c. 2 Fed. Rep. 542; Coupe v.
Weatherhead, 23 O. G. 1927; s. c. 16 Fed. Rep. 673; Williams v. Can-
dee, 18 Blatch. 140; s. c. 5 Ban & Ard. 418; s. c. 2 Fed. Rep. 683;
Miller v. Pickering, 16 Fed. Rep. 540; s. c. 40 Leg. Int. 182; Woven W.
M. Co. v. Wire W. B. Co., 5 Ban & Ard. 277; s. c. 1 Fed. Rep. 222;
Spaeth v. Gibson, 23 O. G. 1732; Stebbins H. E. Manuf. Co. v. Stebbins,
17 O. G. 1348; s. c. 5 Ban & Ard. 199; s. c. 4 Fed. Rep. 445; Graham
v. Gammon, 7 Biss. 490; s. c. 3 Ban & Ard. 7; Albright v. Cel. H. T.
Co., 12 O. G. 227; s. c. 2 Ban & Ard. 629; Harper v. Cooke, 5 Ban &
Ard. 50; Evory v. Burt, 23 O. G. 2121; s. c. 15 Fed. Rep. 112; Klein v.
Park, 13 O. G. 5; s. c. 3 Ban & Ard. 145; Bullock Printing Press Co. v.
Jones, 13 O. G. 124; s. c. 3 Ban & Ard. 195; Megraw v. Carroll, 5 Ban
& Ard. 324; Hoe v. Cole, 13 O. G. 500; Searles v. Van Nest, 13 O. G.
772; s. c. 3 Ban & Ard. 121; Andrews v. Eames, 23 O. G. 1123; s. c.
15 Fed. Rep. 109; Guidet v. Brooklin, 13 0. G. 773 ; s. c. 3 Ban & Ard.
291; H. B. & M. Manuf. Co. v. Sargeant, 14 O. G. 45 ; s. c. 3 Ban &
Ard. 263; Hall v. Jones, 14 O. G. 378 ; s. c. 3 Ban & Ard. 455; Ameri-
can Manuf. Co. v. Lane, 15 O. G. 421 ; s. c. 14 Blatch. 438; s. c. 3 Ban
& Ard. 268; De Florez v. Raynolds, 14 Blatch. 505; s. c. 3 Ban & Ard.
292; Atlantic G. P. Co. v. Dittmar P. M. Co., 17 Blatch. 531; s. c. 17
O. G. 969; s. c. 5 Ban & Ard. 222; s. c. 1 Fed. Rep. 328; Johnson v.

Onion, 3 Hughes 290; Onderdonk v. Fanning, 5 Ban & Ard. 85; s. c. 4 Fed. Rep. 148; Buzzell v. O'Connell, 4 Fed. Rep. 325; Dunbar v. Estabrook, 5 Ban & Ard. 68; s. c. 4 Fed. Rep. 545; Robinson v. Sutter, 10 Biss. 100; s. c. 19 O. G. 127; s. c. 8 Fed. Rep. 828; Tyler v. Crane, 19 O. G. 128; s. c. 7 Fed. Rep. 775; Bridgeport Wood Finishing Co. v. Hooper, 18 Blatch. 459; s. c. 20 O. G. 156; s. c. 5 Fed. Rep. 63; Straw S. M. Co. v. Eames, 18 Blatch. 520; s. c. 19 O. G. 359; s. c. 6 Fed. Rep. 181; Wilt v. Grier, 19 O. G. 427; s. c. 5 Fed. Rep. 450; Woven Wire Mattress Co. v. Palmer, 5 Ban & Ard. 455 ; s. c. 5 Fed. Rep. 812; Fischer v. Hayes, 19 Blatch. 26; s. c. 20 O. G. 239; s. c. 6 Fed. Rep. 76; Potter v. Stewart, 18 Blatch. 561; s. c. 19 O. G. 997; s. c. 7 Fed. Rep. 217; Waring v. Johnson, 19 Blatch. 38; s. c. 19 O. G. 1068; s. c. 6 Fed. Rep. 500; Putnam v. Van Hofe, 19 Blatch. 63; s. c. 19 O. G. 1352; s. c. 6 Fed. Rep. 897; Marks v. Fox, 18 Blatch. 502; s. c. 6 Fed. Rep. 727; American D. R. B. Co. v. Sheldon, 17 Blatch. 208; s. c. 4 Ban & Ard. 551; Hobbs v. King, 19 O. G. 1709; s. c. 8 Fed. Rep. 91; Hammerschlag v. Scamoni, 20 O. G. 1449; s. c. 20 O. G. 75; s. c. 7 Fed. Rep. 584; Colignon v. Hayes, 20 O. G. 447; s. c. 8 Fed. Rep. 912; Barber v. Hallett, 20 O. G. 449; s. c. 4 Ban & Ard. 213; s. c. 10 Fed. Rep. 130; Woven Wire Mattress Co. v. Wire Web Bed Co., 8 Fed. Rep. 87; Cole v. Moffitt, 8 Fed. Rep. 152; Cal. A. S. P. Co. v. Perine, 7 Saw. 190; s. c. 20 O. G. 813; s. c. 8 Fed. Rep. 821; Steam G. & L. Co. v. Miller, 20 O. G. 889; s. c. 8 Fed. Rep. 314; Shannon v. Stationery Co., 10 Biss. 498; s. c. 9 Fed. Rep. 205; Cox v. Ramsdell, 4 Ban & Ard. 326; McKesson v. Carnrick, 9 Fed. Rep. 44; Chalmers S. P. N. Co. v. Pierce, 9 Fed. Rep. 152; MacDonald v. Shepard, 4 Ban & Ard. 343; Macdonald v. Sidenberg, 4 Ban & Ard. 586; White v. Heath, 22 O. G. 500; s. c. 10 Fed. Rep. 291; Star Salt Castor Co. v. Alden, 10 Fed. Rep. 555; Strobridge v. Landers, 21 O. G. 1027; s. c. 11 Fed. Rep. 880; American Bell Tel. Co. v. Dolbear, 23 O. G. 535 ; s. c. 15 Fed. Rep. 448; Brett v. Quintard, 10 Fed. Rep. 741; Ward v. Grand Detour Plow Co., 14 Fed. Rep. 696; Union Stone Co. v. Allen, 14 Fed. Rep. 353; Wallicks v. Cantrell, 21 O. G. 1878; s. c. 12 Fed. Rep. 790; Loud v. Stone, 11 Fed. Rep. 721; Gottfried v. Crescent B. Co., 22 O. G. 1447; s. c. 13 Fed. Rep. 479; Weeks v. Buffalo Scale Co., 11 Fed. Rep. 901; Brainard v. Cramme, 22 O. G. 769; s. c. 12 Fed. Rep. 621; Barker v. Todd, 22 O. G. 1448; s. c. 13 Fed. Rep. 473; Myers v. Duker, 1 Ban & Ard. 535; Gold & S. T. Co. v. Wiley, 17 Fed. Rep. 234; Wallace v. Noyes, 23 O. G. 435; s. c. 13 Fed. Rep. 172; United Nickel Co. v. Melchior, 17 Fed. Rep. 340; Schillinger v. Greenway Brewing Co., 24 O. G. 495; s. c. 17 Fed. Rep. 744; Brett v. Quintard, 17 Fed. Rep. 529; Dunham v. Kimball, 17 Fed. Rep. 810.

If a device operates in substantially the same way as the device in the patentee's invention it is an infringement, although it was not known or in use at the date of that invention. Potter v. Stewart, 18 Blatch. 561; s. c. 19 O. G. 997; s. c. 7 Fed. Rep. 215.

The inventor usually sets forth what he conceives to be the best form or mode under which his machine may be used to produce the required