§ 498. The Description when the Invention is a Machine. A machine is a mode of operation embodied in tangible materials. Its essence or principle is its structural law, and this must, therefore, be correctly and intelligibly explained. As this principle can be made available for use only by its expression in some actual mechanism, the best mode of constructing and employing such a mechanism must also be described. Every integral part of the machine, with its position and relation to the other parts, and with all those details of shape, proportion, and materials which are essential to the operation of the mechanism as a whole, should be delineated in such a manner as to distinguish the principle of this machine from those which underlie and govern all previous machines. Other matters serve only the purposes of illustration, and may be omitted if the machine and its principle can be fully understood without them.2

see Tilghman v. Werk (1862), 1 Bond, tion of its product, see Western Electric 511; 2 Fisher, 229.

That a rule requiring heat "not less than 3100" does not limit the invention to that degree if the process is the same, see Buchanan v. Howland (1863), 2 Fisher, 341.

That where the Description of a chemical process uses terms applicable to several substances only one of which will answer, it is insufficient, see Anilin v. Levinstein (1884), L. R. 29 Ch. 366.

That where some heat is needed and no exact degree can be given because dependent on the condition of the substance treated, if a maximum and minimum are stated, the rest may be left to the judgment of the operator, see Mowry . Whitney (1871), 14 Wall. 620; 5 Fisher, 494; 1 O. G. 492.

That a process may be described by describing either the result with the mode of obtaining it, or the means employed to produce it, see Andrews v. Hovey (1883), 16 Fed. Rep. 387; 5 McCrary, 181; 26 O. G. 1011.

That a process cannot be inferred by the court or the public from a descrip

Co. v. Ansonia Co. (1885), 114 U. S. 447; 31 O. G. 1305.

$498. That the Description of a machine is sufficient when it contains a proper designation of the invention, a clear description of its parts, its operation, and its relation to surrounding matters, a distinct separation of the new and old, and is followed by well-defined Claims, see Ex parte Thompson (1879), 16 O. G. 588.

That a Description of the mode of using a machine is not a Description of the machine itself, see Ex parte Doten (1877), 12 O. G. 841.

That the failure to describe an essential element renders the whole Description defective, see Carr v. Rice (1856), 1 Fisher, 198; Felton v. Greaves (1829), 3 C. & P. 611; 1 Abb. P. C. 416.

That a failure to describe an element embraced in the idea of the inventor, but without which the new machine will work, is not a fatal defect, see Carr v. Rice (1856), 1 Fisher, 198.

2 In Page v. Ferry (1857), 1 Fisher, 298, Wilkins, J.: (307) "Where the

$499. The Description when the Invention is a Manufacture. A manufacture is the most indefinite of all the different classes of inventions. Its essential qualities are, of course, those without which it would cease to be the particular invention that it now is; but what these qualities are it is often difficult to ascertain and to declare. Various methods. of describing manufactures have therefore been adopted, to suit the varying character of these inventions. Where its essential qualities are discernible these may be enumerated, and if this can be so clearly and precisely done as not only to give a complete knowledge of the new manufacture, but also to distinguish it from all others, it is the best mode of describing it. Where this is impossible, the process by which the manufacture is produced may be particularly delineated and the manufacture described as the result of that peculiar process. If the manufacture is obtained by using chemicals, the substances employed and their mode of use may be stated and the nature of their product thus defined.1 But in all cases

object of the patent may be obtained by a competent mechanic of ordinary skill, one acquainted with the structure of similar machines, or structures involving the same principle, by fairly following out the specifications and drawings, without other inventions or additions or experiment, the patent is valid and unimpeached, and the rule of law is sufficiently met."

In Brooks v. Jenkins (1844), 3 McLean, 432, the court say: (447) "The utmost precision in the Description of the machine is not to be expected, nor is it essential. Parts of machinery and processes generally known need not be described. A wedge, pulleys, rollers, rack and pinion, and other things, known to all mechanics, will be supplied by the mechanist without stating their size or structure. Nor is it essential to state the proportionate parts of a machine, nor the velocity of its operations. These are matters of adjustment for the eye and judgment of the constructor. Whether a machine be large in its parts

or small, its motion slow or quick, makes no difference in the principle of it." See also Temple Pump Co. v. Goss Pump & Rubber Bucket Mfg. Co. (1887), 39 O. G. 467; 30 Fed. Rep. 440; Singer v. Walmsley (1860), 1 Fisher, 558; Crossley v. Beverly (1827), 1 Web. 106; 1 Abb. P. C. 409.

That the Description of a machine need not include modifications and ap pliances which practical use or their general knowledge would suggest to mechanics, see Union Paper Bag Co. v. Nixon (1873), 4 O. G. 31; 6 Fisher, 402.

That the phrase "vertical or nearly so" is certain enough for skilled mechanics, see Swift v. Whisen (1867), 2 Bond, 115; 3 Fisher, 343.

§ 499. 1 That a manufacture may be described by describing its mode of production, if no better way exists, sce Anilin v. Higgin (1878), 15 Blatch. 290; 14 O. G. 414; 3 Bann. & A. 462.

That a product may be described and claimed as the result of a described pro

the manufacture must, in some way, be fully explained and be distinguished from all other inventions, and this being done, other assertions regarding it are immaterial. Thus when the manufacture can be understood without it, the process or machine by which it is produced need not be mentioned; 2 and if their description is attempted, a defect therein will not impair the validity of that by which the manufacture is explained.

§ 500. The Description when the Invention is a Composition of

Matter.

A composition of matter is a group of ingredients intermingled in a specific manner and producing a specific result which has new properties of its own. Thus it presents three essential subjects for description: the ingredients, their mode of intermixture, and the resulting composition. Each of the ingredients must be completely and exactly described, either by the name given to it in the arts or by an enumeration of its qualities, or in some other way intelligible to those who are to use it. Nothing must be left to experiment either as to their nature or their number, and no substance should be specified as an ingredient unless it is essential to the composition, since the inventor will be so far concluded by it that he cannot claim that any composition is identical with his un

cess or "any process which will produce a like result," see Pickhardt v. Packard (1884), 23 Blatch. 23; 30 O. G. 179; Anilin v. Higgin (1878), 15 Blatch. 290; 14 O. G. 414; Bann. & A. 462.

That unless a product is so described that it can be recognized apart from the description of the process of making it the patent will cover it only when made by that process, see Cochrane v. Anilin (1884), 111 U. S. 293; 27 O. G. 813.

That if the manufacture as disclosed by the Description is useful it is sufficient, though if better described it could be made to be more useful, see McNamara v. Hulse (1842), Car. & M. 471; 2 Web. 129.

2 That a Description of a manufacture

need not describe the mode of producing it, see McCloskey's Application (1879), 3 MacArthur, 14; Cohn v. United States Corset Co. (1876), 93 U. S. 366; 11 O G. 457; Cohn v. United States Corset Co. (1874), 12 Blatch. 225; 1 Bann. & A. 340; 6 O. G. 259.

That a specification may be sufficient for a product when it would not suffice if the invention were a machine, see Brass Co. v. Miller (1871), 5 Fisher, 48; 9 Blatch. 77.

That if the product be fully described and also the machine for making it, the description of the product will be sufficient though the machine prove useless, see Magic Ruffle Co. v. Douglass (1863), 2 Fisher, 330.

less it employs such substance or its equivalent. In describ ing the mode of intermixture, the quantity and proportions. of the several ingredients, and the process of compounding them, must be correctly and precisely stated. Here, also, nothing must be left open to be determined by experiment." Where quantities and proportions must be exact in order to produce the composition, the Description must furnish this exact rule. Where variations in proportions or quantity are

consistent with the attainment of the desired result, the limits of such variations must be definitely given. If differences in the quality or strength of the ingredients as commonly found existing in the arts require differences of proportion, this must be disclosed and a rule given which can be practically followed. The intermixture of ingredients is an art or process, and must be described in the same manner as any other art, each act with the physical means for performing it being specified unless already obvious to those skilled in the art.5 The composition itself may be described in the same method as a manufacture, either by enumerating its essential qualities, or. where it is inseparably connected with the mode of production, by stating it as the result of the particular intermingling of the ingredients before described. In these descriptions Description is uncertain, and the quantity or degree named will be taken as exact, the word "about" being disregarded, see Davis v. Palmer (1827), 2 Brock. 298; 1 Robb, 518.

4 That it is sufficient to describe the proportions of ingredients as lying within certain limits (e. g., "from lb. to 1 lb.") if any quantity within these limits will answer, see Goodyear v. Wait (1867), 5 Blatch. 468; 3 Fisher, 242.

That where the Description says that the proportions of ingredients may be varied, it does not cover all proportions, but only those within proximate limits, see Francis v. Mellor (1871), 5 Fisher, 153; 1 O. G. 48.

That the Description need not prescribe exact and unvarying proportions of ingredients, nor state that all the substances employed for collateral purposes (as coloring matter, etc.), if not true ingredients, must invariably be used, see Klein v. Russell (1873), 19 Wall. 433.

That if the Description states what the inventor considers the best proportions it is sufficient though others will answer, see Patent Type Founding Co. v. Richard (1859), 6 Jur. N. s. 39.

That the Description must enable

one skilled in the art to mix the ingredients, and produce the composition, without further experiment, see Jenkins

v.

Walker (1872), 5 Fisher, 347; 1 O. G. 359; Holmes, 120.

6 In Goodyear v. Railroad (1853), 1 Fisher, 626, Grier, J. : (635) “If the patentee has set forth fully the materials, their various proportions, and the processes necessary to the production of this composition of matter, he has done all that the law requires, and should be entitled to its protection. The patent should be carefully examined to find the thing discovered, and if it be clearly set forth, the patentee should not suffer for the imperfection or vagueness of the language used in describing its true extent and nature." 2 Wall. Jr. 356 (364).

That a composition may be described by enumerating its qualities, see Ex parte Tweddle (1876), 10 O. G. 747.

That a composition may be described as the result of a described process when there is no clearer way of delineating it, see Anilin v. Higgin (1878), 15 Blatch. 290; 14 O. G. 414; 3 Bann. & A. 462; Ex parte Tweddle (1876), 10 O. G. 747; Goodyear v. Railroad (1853) 1 Fisher, 626; 2 Wall. Jr. 356.

That the patentee is not bound by