v. Clements, 16 O. G. 854; s. c. 4 Ban & Ard. 540; Starrett v. Athol Machine Co., 23 O. G. 1729; s. c. 14 Fed. Rep. 910; Judson v. Bradford, 16 O. G. 171; s. c. 3 Ban & Ard. 539; Smith v. Halkyard, 23 O. G. 1833; s. c. 16 Fed. Rep. 414; Cooke v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 16 O. G. 856; s. c. 4 Ban & Ard. 398; Williams v. B. & A. R. R. Co., 17 Blatch. 21; s. c. 16 O. G. 906; s. c. 4 Ban & Ard. 441; Coupe v Weatherhead, 23 O. G. 1927; s. c. 16 Fed. Rep. 673; Megraw v. Carroll, 5 Ban & Ard. 324; Spill v. Celluloid Manuf. Co., 18 Blatch. 190; s. c. 17 O. G. 1448; s. c. 5 Ban & Ard. 405; s. c. 2 Fed. Rep. 707; Evory v. Candee, 5 Ban & Ard. 435; s. c. 2 Fed. Rep. 542; Peck S. & W. Co. v. Lindsay, 18 O. G. 63; s. c. 5 Ban & Ard. 390; s. c. 2 Fed. Rep. 688; Searles v. Van Nest, 5 Ban & Ard. 456; Strobridge v. Lindsay, 18 O. G. 62; s. c. 5 Ban & Ard. 411; s. c. 2 Fed. Rep. 692; Sinclair v. Backus, 17 O. G. 1503; s. c. 5 Ban & Ard. 81; s. c. 4 Fed. Rep. 539; Tyler v. Welch, 18 Blatch. 209; s. c. 17 O. G. 1508; 5 Ban & Ard. 511; s. c. 3 Fed. Rep. 636; Whit-. man v. James, 5 Ban & Ard. 575; Roberts v. Schreiber, 18 O. G. 125; s. c. 5 Ban & Ard. 491; s. c. 2 Fed. Rep. 855; Bankard v. Bostwick, 18 0. G. 61; s. c. 5 Ban & Ard. 463; s. c. 3 Fed. Rep. 517; Munson v. G. & B. Manuf. Co., 18 O. G. 194; s. c. 3 Ban & Ard. 595; Adams v. Moline Wagon Works Co., 16 Fed. Rep. 236; Adams v. Ill. Manuf. Co., 18 0. G. 412; s. c. 4 Ban & Ard. 543; Irish v. Knapp, 18 O. G. 735; s. c. 5 Ban & Ard. 47; Holly v. Vergennes Machine Co., 18 Blatch. 327 ; s. c. 18 O. G. 1177; s. c. 4 Fed. Rep. 74; Pearce v. Mulford, 102 U. S. 112; s. c. 180. G. 1223; s. c. 11 O. G. 741; s. c. 14 Blatch. 141; s. c. 2 Ban & Ard. 542; Bignall v. Harvey, 18 Blatch. 353; s. c. 18 O. G. 1275; s. c. 5 Ban & Ard. 636; s. c. 4 Fed. Rep. 334; U. S. Stamping Co. v. Jewett, 18 Blatch. 469; s. c. 18 O. G. 1529; s. c. 7 Fed. Rep. 869; Tyler v. Crane, 19 O. G. 128; s. c. 7 Fed. Rep. 775; Brown v. Deere, 19 O. G. 361; s. c. 6 Fed. Rep. 484; Blake v. McNab & H. Manuf. Co., 19 Blatch. 73; s. c. 19 O. G. 1219; s. c. 7 Fed. Rep. 821; Sharp v. Dover Stamping Co., 103 U. S. 250; 19 O. G. 1283; Pennington v. King, 19 O. G. 1568;

s. c. 7 Fed. Rep. 462; Wisner v. Grant, 5 Ban & Ard. 215; s. c. 7 Fed. Rep. 485; Hobbs v. King, 19 O. G. 1709; s. c. 8 Fed. Rep. 91; Bridgeport Wood Finishing Co. v. Hooper, 18 Blatch. 459; s. c. 20 O. G. 156; s. c. 5 Fed. Rep. 63; Zinn v. Weiss, 7 Fed. Rep. 914; Watkins v. Cincinnati, 20 O. G. 1588; s. c. 8 Fed. Rep. 325; Emerson v. Howe, 8 Fed. Rep. 327; Wooster v. Blake, 8 Fed. Rep. 429; Davis v. Brown, 19 Blatch. 263; s. c. 20 O. G. 1021; s. c. 9 Fed. Rep. 647; Coburn v. Schroeder, 19 Blatch. 377; s. c. 20 O. G. 1524; s. c. 8 Fed. Rep. 519; Shirley v. Sanderson, 8 Fed. Rep. 905; Selden v. Stockwell S. L. G. B. Co., 19 Blatch. 544; s. c. 20 O. G. 1737; s. c. 9 Fed. Rep. 390; Lorillard v. Dohan, 20 O. G. 1587; s. c. 9 Fed. Rep. 509; Macdonald v. Blackmer, 9 O. G. 746; s. c. 4 Ban & Ard. 78; Cox v. Ramsdell, 4 Ban & Ard. 326; Bate Refrig. Co. v. Gillett, 9 Fed. Rep. 387; Bernard v. Heimann, 21 O. G. 140; s. c. 9 Fed. Rep. 400; Simmons v. Blackington, 3 Ban & Ard. 481; Hoe v. Tuthill, 3 Ban & Ard. 206; Stow v. Chicago, 104 U. S. 547 ; s. c. 21 O. G. 790; s. c. 8 Biss. 47; s. c. 3 Ban & Ard. 83; Coburn v.

Schroeder, 22 O. G. 1538; Gottfried v. Stahlmann, 22 O. G. 1788; s. c. 13 Fed. Rep. 673; Strobridge v. Landers, 21 O. G. 1027; s. c. 11 Fed. Rep. 880; Allis v. Buckstaff, 22 O. G. 1705; 13 Fed. Rep. 879; Damon v. Eastwick, 22 O. G. 1709; s. c. 14 Fed. Rep. 40; Amer. B. L. Co. v. Cotter, 21 O. G. 1030; Hayes v. Bockel, 11 Fed. Rep. 87; Wooster v. Blake, 22 O. G. 1132; Bernard v. Heimann, 22 O. G. 1134; Searls v. Worden, 21 O. G. 1955; s. c. 11 Fed. Rep. 501; Gottfried v. Crescent Brewing Co., 22 O. G. 1447 ; s. c. 13 Fed. Rep. 479; Wallace v. Noyes, 23 O. G. 435; s. c. 13 Fed. Rep. 172; Hoe v. Kahler, 12 Fed. Rep. 111; Schillinger v. Greenway Brewing Co., 24 O. G. 495; s. c. 17 Fed. Rep. 244; Crosby S. G. & V. Co. v. Ashcroft Manuf. Co., 17 Fed. Rep. 85; Fifield v. Whittemore, 17 Fed. Rep. 513; Pickering v. Miller, 25 O. G. 89. Articles of manufacture may be new in the commercial sense when they are not new in the sense of the patent law. New articles of commerce are not patentable as new manufactures, unless it appears in the given case that the production of the new article involved the exercise of invention or discovery beyond what was necessary to construct the apparatus for its manufacture or production. Collar Co. v. Van Deusen, 23 Wall. 530; s. c. 10 Blatch. 119; 5 Fish. 597; 2 O. G. 361; 7 O. G. 919; Union Paper Collar Co. v. Leland, 1 Holmes 427; s. c. 7 O. G. 221; s. c. 1 Ban & Ard. 491; Glue Co. v. Upton, 97 U. S. 3; s. c. 4 Cliff. 237 ; s. c. 6 O. G. 837; s. c. 1 Ban & Ard. 497; Mackay v. Jackman, 22 O. G. 85; s. c. 12 Fed. Rep. 615; Cone v. Morgan Envelope Co., 4 Ban & Ard. 107; Anilin Fabrik v. Cummins, 4 Ban & Ard. 489.

To give an exclusive right, there must be what is called a new principle invented, not a new principle in an abstract sense, for none such is likely to be discovered, but a new combination or mode. If there is nothing different in the alleged discovery from a known mode, there can be no invention which gives a new right to the inventor. The ground on which a patent may be claimed is that something new and useful has been invented a thing which did not exist before—a machine, for instance, differing from all other machines in its structure, movement or effect, by reason of the introduction of some new mechanical combination or principle. Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 4 McLean 456; s. c. 11 How. 248; s. c. 2 Robb 730.

The principle or essential character of an invention involves two elements 1st. The object obtained; 2d. The means by which it is obtained. If either of these is new, it may be the subject of a patent. Wilton v. R. R. Co., 2 Whart. Dig. 359; Batten v. Clayton, 2 Whart. Dig. 363.

The novelty required by the patent law does not refer to the materials out of which the article is made, or merely to the form or workmanship of the parts, or the use of one known equivalent for another. To be new in the sense of the patent law some new mode of operation must be introduced. Furbush v. Cook, 2 Fish. 668.

The novelty need not consist in the materials used, or the powers employed. But there must be a discovery of new principles, or the em

ployment of old ones in a new proportion, or in a new process, or to a new purpose. Holden v. Curtis, 2 N. H. 61.

A new application of a principle by new mechanical contrivances and apparatus, by means of which a new and beneficial result is produced in the use of the article to which it has been thus applied, is patentable. Silsby v. Foote, 1 Blatch. 445; s. c. 14 How. 218; Mowry v. Whitney, 5 Fish. 515; s. c. 14 Wall. 434; 1 O. G. 499.

One invention may be better than the other, but that fact is not to be taken into account. The one that is alleged to be prior must, however, have been an apparatus of some practical utility; but whether it was superior or inferior in degree is not a question. Silsby v. Foote, 2 Blatch. 260; s. c. 20 How. 378; Smith v. Elliott, 5 Fish. 315; s. c. 9 Blatch. 400; 10. G. 331; Blandy v. Griffith, 3 Fish. 609; Fisher v. Craig, 3 Saw. 69; s. c. 1 Ban & Ard. 365.

If there is nothing new in the process, or the machinery for applying it, the result is not patentable. Collar Co. v. Van Deusen, 5 Fish. 597; s. c. 10 Blatch. 109; 2 O. G. 361; 23 Wall. 530; 5 O. G. 919.

Novelty in principle may consist in a new and valuable mode of applying an old power, effecting it not merely by a new instrument or form of the machine, but by something giving a new or greater advantage. Hovey' r. Stevens, 1 W. & M. 290; s. c. 2 Robb 479.

The test of novelty as applied to a combination seems to be whether the application of the powers of nature by such means and appliances as the patentee claims to have invented, had been before known. Bell v. Daniels, 1 Fish. 372; s. c. 1 Bond 212.

Whether the one device is the same in substance or principle as another, depends on whether it is the same kind of instrument or not, and whether it acts in the same way in substance, and produces the same result in substance. Colt v. Mass. Arms Co., 1 Fish. 108; Platt v. Manufac. Co., 5 Fish. 265; s. c. 9 Blatch. 342; 1 O. G. 524; Rumford Works v. Lauer, 5 Fish. 615; s. c. 10 Blatch. 122; 3 O. G. 249; Singer v. Braunsdorf, 7 Blatch. 521; Wilcox v. Komp, 7 Blatch. 126; Springer v. Stanton, 2 O. G. 2.

The question of identity does not depend upon the appearance or form of the two structures claimed to be identical, but simply upon the question whether they are the same in their mode and principle of operation, and whether one is a mechanical equivalent for the other. Blanchard v. Putnam, 3 Fish. 186; s. c. 8 Wall. 420; 2 Bond 84; Whipple v. Baldwin Manuf. Co., 4 Fish. 29.

Change of form is not material when the form does not contribute towards the new result. When it does, the forms must be alike in all important particulars. Adams v. Edwards, 1 Fish. 1.

In order to determine whether the mechanism of two machines is the same, an examination should be made not only of the mechanism itself, that is, the devices and their arrangement, but also of their mode of operation and their effects and results. Eames v. Cook, 2 Fish. 146; Suffolk Co. v. Hayden, 4 Fish. 86; s. c. 3 Wall. 315; Stainthorp v. Humiston, 4

Fish. 107; Cook v. Ernest, 5 Fish. 396; s. c. 1 Woods 195; 2 O. G. 89; Waterbury Brass Co. v. Miller, 5 Fish. 48; s. c. 9 Blatch. 77.

The question is not whether the alleged prior machine was of the same kind as that of the patentee, but whether it was substantially the same. Washburn v. Gould, 3 Story 122; s. c. 2 Robb 206; Smith v. Higgins, 1 Fish. 537; Fisk v. Church, 5 Fish. 540; s. c. 1 O. G. 634; Bray v. Hartshorn, 1 Cliff. 538; Roberts v. Schuyler, 12 Blatch. 444; s. c. 2 Ban & Ard. 5; 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; Butch v. Boyer, 8 Phila. 57; Ex parte Van Syckel, 1 O. G. 330; Waterbury Brass Co. v. Miller, 5 Fish. 48; s. c. 9 Blatch. 77; Dalton v. Jennings, 93 U. S. 271; s. c. 12 Blatch. 96; 5 O. G. 615; 11 O. G. 111; s. c. 93 U. S. 271; s. c. 1 Ban & Ard. 256; Chase v. Sabine, 1 Holmes 395; s. c. 6 O. G. 728; s. c. 1 Ban & Ard. 399; Dane v. Chicago Manuf. Co., 6 Fish. 130; s. c. 3 Biss. 374; 2 O. G. 677; 7 O. G. 924; Tufts v. Machine Co., 1 Holmes 459; s. c. 8 O. G. 239; s. c. 1 Ban & Ard. 633; Decker v. Silverbrandt, .8 O. G. 944; G. & B. Manuf. Co. v. Walworth, 9 O. G. 746; Lyman V. & R. Co. v. Chamberlain, 10 O. G. 588; s. c. 2 Ban & Ard. 433; Boomer v. Power Co., 13 Blatch. 107; s. c. 2 Ban & Ard. 107; Fuller v. Yentzer, 11 O. G. 597; s. c. 94 U. S. 299; s. c. 1 Ban & Ard. 520; Plastic Slate Roofing Co. v. Moore, 1 Holmes 167; U. S. Nickel Co. v. Keith, 1 Holmes 328; s. c. 5 O. G. 272; s. c. 1 Ban & Ard. 44; Cochrane v. Waterman, Cranch Pat. Dec. 121; Cundell v. Parkhurst, Cranch Pat. Dec. 128; Warner v. Goodyear, Cranch Pat. Dec. 125.

There must be a substantial difference in the principle and the application of it to constitute such an improvement in a machine as the law will protect. The principle here [spoken of is not a new mechanical power. No new power in mechanics has been discovered for centuries, but the powers known have been so modified and combined as to produce the most extraordinary results. The principle consists in the mode of applying or combining mechanical powers to produce a certain result. Smith v. Pearce, 2 McLean 176; s. c. 2 Robb 13.

Strong resemblances in external appearances, similarity of products or operation, are not separately tests of the identity of the plan, construction or purpose of machines, nor is a superiority in products or in operation in one over the other, proof of an essential difference, because the slightest change of a machine which effects a real improvement in it may be patentable, while great apparent variations may be only disguises under which an older discovery is attempted to be employed and appropriated. Carr v. Rice, 1 Fish. 198; Howes v. Nute, 4 Fish. 263; s. c. 4 Cliff. 173.

An invention which is valuable for its simplicity and economy can not be antedated by more complex and expensive combinations. King v. Hammond, 4 Fish. 488.

The previous use of a structure bearing some resemblance in some respects to the invention of the patentee, and which might have been suggestive of ideas, or have led to experiments resulting in the discovery and completion of his invention, will not invalidate his claim under his patent, Parker v. Stiles, 5 McLean 44; Livingston v. Jones, 1 Fish. 521.

A party is not an original inventor if the knowledge which he derives from an abandoned experiment is sufficiently clear and definite to enable him to construct the improvement which is the subject of his alleged invention. Union P. B. M. Co. v. P. & W. Co., 15 O. G. 423; s. c. 15 Blatch. 160; s. c. 3 Ban & Ard. 403.

Although an inventor has knowledge of a prior abandoned experiment, yet if he is an original inventor of the improvement he is entitled to the benefit of unsubstantial variations and modifications in form of the principle of his invention notwithstanding such modifications may run into and include the forms of mechanism shown in the abandoned experiment. Union P. B. M. Co. v. P. & W. Co., 15 O. G. 423; s. c. 15 Blatch. 160; s. c. 3 Ban & Ard. 403.

Although an inventor is familiar with a model which has been laid aside, yet if he does not know that it is adequate to do the work, he starts as an independent inventor into an unoccupied field of invention, and his invention is as broad as the territory which he actually reduces to possession, although the utility of the model is subsequently proved. Union P. B. M. Co. v. P. & W. Co., 16 Blatch. 76; s. c. 4 Ban & Ard. 181.

Making a prior device which will serve the like useful purpose is not necessarily anticipating an invention. Where the mechanical means employed are different, and the mechanical result is different, one does not anticipate the other. Buerk v. Valentine, 5 Fish. 366; s. c. 9 Blatch. 479 ; 2 O. G. 295.

A device for applying a mechanical force or power to a new purpose can not be avoided by proving that the mechanical force or power is old. The application of a special spring to operate a churn dash may be new, although the spring is old. Dunbar v. Marden, 13 N. H. 311.

If the mechanical combination of the members of two machines is such that the action and mode of operation differ in the two machines, then one is something more than a mere mechanical equivalent for the other, although each element of the combination in one may, under some circumstances, be regarded as the equivalent of the corresponding element in the other, when the elements are separately considered. Blake v. Rawson, 6 Fish. 74; s. c. 1 Holmes 200; 3 O. G. 122.

Where two machines or things are made to operate substantially in the same way, so as to produce a similar result, they are the same in principle. Roberts v. Ward, 4 McLean 565.

If the invention is substantially different from anything before known in its mode of operation it is new. Lowell v. Lewis, 1 Mason 182; s. c. 1 Robb 132; Ex parte Barton, 1 O. G. 329; Parker v. Hatfield, 4 McLean 61.

If the mechanism in two machines is substantially different, then they are not the same, although they may produce the same result, for the same end may be attained by different processes or instrumentalities. Eames v. Cook, 2 Fish. 146.

If the mode of operation of two machines is different it is evidence that the mechanism is different. Eames v. Cock, 2 Fish. 146; Ex parte A. F. Jones, 1 O. G. 329.