mouth of the patient, and his nostrils stopped or closed in such manner as to cause him to inhale air through the bottle, and to exhale it through the neck and out of the valve on the outside of the neck. The air thus breathed, by passing in contact with the sponge, will be charged with the ethereal vapors, which will be conveyed by it into the lungs of the patient. This will soon produce the state of insensibility or nervous quiet required.

In order to render the ether agreeable to various persons, we often combine it with one or more essential oils having pleasant perfumes. This may be effected by mixing the ether and essential oil and washing the mixture in water. The impurities will subside, and the ether, impregnated with the perfume, will rise to the top of the water. We sometimes combine a narcotic preparation-such as opium or morphine-with the ether. This may be done by any way known to chemists by which a combination of ethereal and narcotic vapors may be produced.

After a person has been put into the state of insensibility, as above described, a surgical operation may be performed upon him without, so far as repeated experiments have proved, giving to him any apparent or real pain, or so little in comparison to that produced by the usual process of conducting surgical operations as to be scarcely noticeable. There is very nearly, if not entire, absence of all pain. Immediately or soon after the operation is completed a restoration of the patient to his usual feelings takes place without, generally speaking, his having been sensible of the performance of the operation.

From the experiments we have made we are led to prefer the vapors of sulphuric ether to those of muriatic or other kinds of ether; but any such may be employed which will properly produce the state of insensibility without any injurious consequences to the patient.

We are fully aware that narcotics have been administered to patients undergoing surgical operations, and, as we believe, always by introducing them into the stomach.

This we consider in no respect to embody our invention, as we operate through the lungs and air passages, and the effects produced upon the patient are entirely or so far different as to render the one of very little while the other is of immense utility. The consequences of the change are very considerable, as an immense amount of human or animal suffering can be prevented by the application of our discovery.

What we claim as our invention is

The hereinbefore-described means by which we are enabled to effect the above highly-important improvement in surgical operations-viz., by combining therewith the application of ether or the vapor thereof-substantially as above specified.

In testimony whereof we have hereto set our signatures this 27th day of October, A. D. 1846.

CHARLES T. JACKSON.
WM. T. G. MORTON.

(To be Continued)

PERIODICAL ARTICLES.

"Rights of Inventors and Patentees, How Enforced."

By W. G. CARR.

(Abstracted from The Electrical Journal, Vol. XXI, No. 9, Sept. 1924, pages 434-438).

A patent issued by the Patent Office, representing the Government grants to the patentee the right to exclude others from manufacturing, selling or using an invention and this right is enforcible in the United States irrespective of whether or not the patentee actually makes use

of the patented invention and this right cannot be impaired or destroyed because of anything that comes into existence subsequent to the grant of the patent. In many foreign countries there is the obligation of "working" the patented invention as a requirement for further existence of the patent. Also in some countries there is obligation to grant licenses to manufacture the patented invention.

Every patent issued by the Government has prima facie validity. It is, nevertheless, subject to attack in Court if the patentee should elect proceedings to establish his rights to exclude others. This litigation is confined, of course, to the Federal Courts.

A patentee may resort to action at equity or action at law to establish his rights to exclude others. This litigation is as a rule in the form of equity suits because an injunction to stop infringement can only be brought in a court of equity. If the patent infringed has already expired the only redress is an action at law. The primary object of an infringement suit is the prevention of further infringement and this can be done by an injunction granted by a court of equity. Injunctions are of two kinds; namely, those of a temporary nature called preliminary, interlocutory or ad-interim injunctions, and permanent injunctions.

In patent suits, litigants have the privilege of presenting expert testimony in the form of affidavits contingent upon producing the experts at the trial for the purpose of cross-examination. Also in the case of persons living more than 100 miles from the place of trial the testimony may be given in the form of depositions before any person empowered to administer oaths. When testimony is so taken it is offered in evidence at the trial and, if desired, is read to the Court.

The United States comprises nine judicial circuits, each circuit comprising several districts according to the teritory and population. Each of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court is assigned to one of the U. S. Circuits. On March 31, 1911 the Circuit Courts were abolished by

act of Congress and the litigation handled by them transferred to the District Courts. The Federal Courts now comprise the Supreme Court, the U. S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the District Courts. Under the existing law, patent suits may be taken to the Supreme Court only by writ of certiorari. Such a writ is granted only in the event that the Supreme Court is convinced that the matter at issue is of great public importance or in the event that conflicting decisions have been rendered in different Circuits respecting a single patent and involving similar facts.

As to the matter of claims, the claim of a patent should cover not only what is specifically shown in the drawings and described in the specification but also equivalent structures, that is, structures which though different in details have substantially the same mode of operation and produce substantially the same results. As a rule a court will not broaden claims by interpretation to cover and include something which is outside the language employed when given its customary and normal meaning. There are exceptions to this, however.

It is usual, in instituting a suit for infringement, to include in the bill of complaint a general allegation of infringement of a patent upon which the suit is based, but if the patent contains more than one claim, the defendant's counsel either requests plaintiff's counsel for an informal statement as to the claim or claims upon which he expects to rely in the trial of the suit or files in the court a motion for a better statement of claim, sometimes called a bill of particulars.

It is within the province of the Court to decree that the claims involved in the suit are valid and infringed, or valid but not infringed, or invalid. It is, of course, also within the province of the court's privilege and discretion to make one finding as to a portion of the claims, if more than one be involved, and an entirely different finding with reference to the remaining claims.

As to court costs, if the finding of the court is in favor of the plaintiff on all the claims, the costs are awarded

to him and against the defendant and vice versa. In the case the decision is partially for the plaintiff and partially for the defendant, it is usual for the court to rule that each party shall pay his own costs.

A patent, when made the subject of an infringement suit, is open to attack by the defendant upon a variety of grounds, among which may be mentioned inoperativeness of the patented structure, incomplete or faulty disclosure, disclosure of the patented structure or something so nearly like it that it meets the requirements of the claims in suit in one or more prior patents or in one or more printed publications, irrespective of the country in which such patent or patents has been issued and irrespective of the language in which such printed publication or publications is printed or where the publication took place.

Proposed Law-France. "La Propriété Industrielle", Aug. 31, 1924, page 165.

M. Raynaldy, Minister of Commerce, will present two proposals for laws to the Chamber of Deputies, prepared by the Technical Committee of Industrial Property and revising the patent law of 1844 and the trademark law of 1857.

The following points are considered:

1. General definition of non-patentable inventions. 2. Extension of the duration of patents from 15 years to 20 years.

3. General conditions to be filed by patent attorneys.

4. Temporary guarantee of inventions during a year at the most by filing a patent application accompanied by a fee of 40 francs.

5. Institution of opposition proceedings to grants of patents by interested third parties, analogous to that already existing in various countries (Great Britain, Germany, etc.).