Opinion of the court. Proofs without the requisite allegations are as unavailing as such. allegations would be without the proofs requisite to support them. Foster v. Goddard, 1 Black, 518; Tripp v. Vincent, 3 Barbour's Chancery, 613; Boone v. Chiles, 10 Peters, 178; Harrison et al. v. Nixon, 9 Id., 483. It is alleged in the answer that the testator was not the original and first inventor of the process described in his patents. The original patent was issued in 1844. The invention has since been covered by a succession of patents, the last of which, the reissues in question, are still unexpired, and are the foundation of this litigation. The discovery was one of very great value. It is a mine of wealth to the possessors. Since the first patent was issued there have been numerous cases of litigation involving its validity. They were earnestly contested. In every instance the patent was sustained. This litigation was remarked upon by the counsel for the appellants, and it was added that this question is now, for the first time, presented to this court for consideration. It is a just commentary to say that such a litigation is always to be expected in cases like this. There are always those who are ready to gather where they have not sown. The number and ardor of the conflicts is usually in proportion to the value of the prize at stake. The validity of the claim of the testator was never shaken by any adjudication. It has been uniformly affirmed and sustained. If the subject was never brought here before, it was doubtless because those who were defeated elsewhere saw no ground for the hope of a more favorable result in this court. These considerations are very persuasive to the presumption that the claim of Charles Goodyear, the elder, that he was the original and first inventor, is impregnable. If it were not so, we cannot doubt that it would have been overthrown in the numerous and severe assaults which have been made upon it. We have, however, examined the question by the light of the evidence found in the record, and in the absence of the adjudications referred to should have had no difficulty in coming to the same conclusion. We entertain no doubt upon the subject. The point was not very earnestly pressed upon our attention in the argument at the bar. We deem what we have said in regard to it sufficient. The patents reissued to the executor upon the surrender of the patent reissued to the testator were numbered respectively 1084 and 1085. The one numbered 1085 is for the process by which vulcanized India-rubber is manufactured. The other one is for the result of the process in the form of the article produced. It is contended by the appellants that both these patents are in Opinion of the court. valid, for two reasons-1st, because they are broader than the claims of the patent surrendered by the executor; and, 2d, because one is for a process, and the other for the product of that process. The court below held the objection to the patent for the process-that it is too broad-fatal to its validity, because the claim embraced "other vulcanizable gums" besides India-rubber as articles to which the process was to be applied. From this part of the decree below no appeal was taken by the complainants. It is, therefore, final and conclusive in its effect, and the patent to which it relates must be laid out of view. It remains, therefore, to consider only the patent No. 1084, which is for the product. The claims of the patent reissued to Charles Goodyear, deceased, in 1849, are as follows: "What I claim as my invention and desire to secure by letters patent is the curing of caoutchouc, or India-rubber, by subjecting it to the action of a high degree of artificial heat, substantially as herein described, and for the purposes specified. "And I also claim the preparing and curing the compound of India-rubber, sulphur, and a carbonate or other salt, or oxide of lead, by subjugating the same to the action of artificial heat, substantially as herein described." The claim of the patent for the product is thus expressed: "What is claimed as the invention of Charles Goodyear, deceased, is the new manufacture of vulcanized India-rubber, (whether with or without other ingredients,) chemically altered by the application of heat, substantially as described." The specification, among other things, contains these clauses: "For many purposes the manufacture is improved by the addition of other substances than sulphur, among which white lead is one of the best, and which, when used, may be combined in the mixture above described, in the proportion of seven parts by weight, thereby forming a triple compound. Other salts of lead may be used with advantage, and coloring matter may be also incorporated with the mixture for the purpose of imparting colors to the product. "And other materials, such as cotton, silk, wool, or leather, may be incorporated or combined with the India-rubber and sulphur, thereby modifying the strength, elasticity, or other qualities of the new manufacture for particular purposes; as it is found that the new substance or product will be produced whenever the essential elements of rubber, sulphur, and heat are used, whether such other materials are incorporated or not." Opinion of the court. A patent should be construed in a liberal spirit, to sustain the just claims of the inventor. This principle is not to be carried so far as to exclude what is in it, or to interpolate anything which it does not contain. But liberality, rather than strictness, should prevail where the fate of the patent is involved, and the question to be decided is whether the inventor shall hold or lose the fruits of his genius and his labors. Corning v. Burden, 15 Howard, 269; Battin v. Taggert, 17 Id. 74. The surrender was made by the executor, for the reason that the specification was defective and required amendment. This the law permitted, if the facts brought the case within the provisions of the statute. The Commissioner was charged with the duty of examining the facts and deciding upon the application. His judgment is shown in the results. Upon comparing the context of the specifications of the surrendered and of the reissued patent, and giving to each a reasonable interpretation, we are satisfied that the decision was correct, and we see no reason to reverse it. It is the right of the patentee and his representatives to enlarge or restrict the claim, so as to give it validity and secure the invention. Batiin v. Taggert, 17 Howard, 84. Patentable subjects, as defined by the patent law, (act of 1836, § 6, (are “any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement on any art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." A machine may be new, and the product or manufacture proceeding from it may be old. In that case the former would be patentable and the latter not. The machine may be substantially old and the product new. In that event the latter, and not the former, would be patentable. Both may be new, or both may be old. In the former case, both would be patentable; in the latter neither. The same remarks apply to processes and their results. Patentability may exist as to either, neither, or both, according to the fact of novelty, or the opposite. The patentability, or the issuing of a patent as to one, in nowise affects the rights of the inventor or discoverer in respect to the other. They are wholly disconnected and independent facts. Such is the sound and necessary construction of the statute. This objection to the patent, we think, is also not well taken. Can we go behind the action of the Commissioner in extending the patent and inquire into the frauds by which it is alleged that the extension was procured? The fifth section of the act of 1790, (1 Stat. at Large, 109,) provided for the repeal of patents under the circumstances and in the manner specified. This act was repealed by the act of 1793. 1 Stat. at Large, 318. 1 Stat. at Large, 318. The tenth section of that act re-enacted the fifth section of the act of 1790. The fifth Opinion of the court. section of the latter act authorized substantially the same defenses in suits upon patents which are allowed by the 15th section of the act of 1836, with the further provision, that if the facts touching either defense were established, "judgment shall be rendered for the defendant with costs, and the patent shall be declared void.” This act continued in force until it was repealed by the act of 1836. These provisions were not then, and they have not since been, reenacted. The 16th section of the act of 1836 authorizes a court of equity, in cases of interference, to take jurisdiction and annul the patent issued to the party in the wrong. Beyond this the patent laws are silent upon the subject of the exercise of such authority. This review furnishes a strong implication that it was the intention of Congress not to allow a patent to be abrogated in any collateral proceeding, except in the particular instance mentioned, but to leave the remedy in all other cases to be regulated by the principles of general jurisprudence. To those principles we must look for the solution of the question before us. The subject was examined by Chancellor Kent with his accustomed fullness of research and ability, in Jackson v. Lawton, 10 Johnson, 23. He there said: "Unless letters patent are absolutely void on the face of them, or the issuing of them was without authority, or was prohibited by statute, they can only be avoided in a regular course of pleading, in which the fraud, irregularity, or mistake is regularly put in issue. The principle has been frequently admitted, that the fraud must appear on the face of the patent to render it void in a court of law, and that when the fraud or other defect arises on circumstances, dehors the grant, the grant is voidable only by suit. 1 Henning & Munford, 19, 187; 1 Munford, 134. The regular tribunal is chancery, founded on a proceeding by scire facias or by bill or information." The patent in that case was for land, but, as regards the point here under consideration, there is no distinction between such a patent and one for an invention or discovery. If there be, the case is stronger as to the latter. In the case of Field v. Scabury, 19 Howard, 332, the patent was also for land. This court ruled the point in like manner, and the same remarks apply. Viewing the subject in the light of the principle involved, we can see no defect in the parallelism between that case and the one before us. The extension was granted by the Commissioner pursuant to the first section of the act of 1848 and the eighteenth section of the act of 1836. The latter declares that upon the making and recording of the certificate of extension "the said patent shall have the same effect in law as though it had been originally granted for the term of twenty-one years. The law made it the duty of the Commis Opinion of the court. sioner to examine and decide. He had full jurisdiction. The function he performed was judicial in its character. No provision is made for appeal or review. Foley v. Harrison, 15 Howard, 448. His decision must be held conclusive until the patent is impeached in a proceeding had directly for that purpose according to the rules which define the remedy, as shown by the precedents and authorities upon the subject. We are not, therefore, at liberty to enter upon the examination of the evidences of fraud to which we have. been invited by the counsel for the appellants. The door to that inquiry in this case is closed upon us by the hand of the law. The rule which we have thus laid down is intended to be limited to the class of cases to which, as respects the point in question, the one before us belongs. We decide nothing beyond this. The proof of infringement makes a case so clear for the appellees, in our judgment, that it is deemed unnecessary to extend this opinion by discussing the subject. It is unnecessary to consider the respective rights of the several corporation complainants in this litigation, because it is clear that such as do not belong to them are vested in Charles Goodyear, the executor, by virtue of his holding the entire legal title of the pat ent. The appellants meet the case in the aspect of infringement, by setting up a license from Charles Goodyear, deceased, to E. M. Chaffee, bearing date on the 25th of June, 1846, which they insist is a complete bar to the relief sought by the bill. This instrument gives to Chaffee, "his executors, administrators, and assigns, a free license to use the said Goodyear's gum-elastic composition for coating cloth for the purpose of japanning, marbling, and variegate japanning, at his own establishment, but not to be disposed of to others for that purpose without the consent of the said Charles Goodyear; .. the right and license hereby conferred being limited to the United States, and not extending to. any foreign country, and not being intended to convey any right to make any contract with the government of the United States." There are several objections to the view taken of this license by the counsel for the appellant. It authorizes Chaffee to use it himself. It gave him no right to authorize others to use it in conjunction with himself, or otherwise, without the consent of Goodyear, which is not shown, and not to be presumed. It was to be used at his own establishment, and not at one occupied by himself and others. Looking at the terms of the instrument, and the testimony in the record, we are satisfied that its true meaning and purpose were to authorize the licensee to make and sell India-rubber cloth, |