374 "THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 







out, was i:>ronounced an abandonment of his invention, because it was 

 not a use for experiment or in private, but a practical use of the com- 

 pleted article. Even a single sale to a buyer, who bought the thing 

 only " on trial," has been pronounced an abandonment. 



A case of some hardship was that of a card-manufacturer who ran 

 machines of his invention for several years under arrangements in-' 

 tended to secure secrecy : a limited number of workmen were em- 

 ployed ; the factory-doors were kept locked, each workman having a 

 key ; and visitors were but rarely admitted. Yet no formal pledge of 

 secrecy was exacted from those who saw the machine. In course of 

 time the inventor obtained a patent, but in the mean time his foreman 

 had " given away " the secret to competitors. The Judge said that an 

 inventor's conducting his business so that the public have an oj^por- 

 tunity of knowing and imitating his invention forfeits his right, with- 

 out proof that any great number of persons knew it. If any one knew 

 it under such circumstances that he might have made it public without 

 a breach of confidence, the right is abandoned. 



With respect to delay, while it is familiar that an inventor is not 

 limited to any particular time within which he must apply, yet the 

 ;Supreme Court has lately said, quite emphatically, that, unless he is 

 vigilant and active in applying, or there is good excuse, such as sick- 

 ness, poverty, etc., for his jDOStponement, he runs the risk that his in- 

 vention will be considered abandoned to the public. The story of the 

 case was, that "Woodbury, in 1848, applied for a patent for an improve- 

 ment in planing-machines, but it was rejected. He took no further 

 stej^s until 1870, and meantime the principle of his invention had been 

 adoj^ted by other persons. Then he obtained a patent ; but it was 

 annulled for his long neglect. Inventors should be wary of disclosure 

 and delay. 



A decision of the Supreme Court known as Mitchell vs. Tilghman 

 (19 Wall., 287) has given some persons an idea that a process can not 

 be the subject of a patent ; though the intention was, only to decide 

 that the patentee was confined in his right to the particular method 

 pointed out in his specification. lie litigated the case further, gath- 

 ered additional evidence, and presented the question to the Court 

 again ; and the Court has in effect overruled its former decision, now 

 explaining emphatically that a patent may be, under American law, 

 granted for a process. Our patent law is not confined to new machines 

 and new compositions of matter, but extends to any new and useful 

 art of manufacture ; and a manufacturing process is clearly an art. 

 The principle is that, whoever discovers that a certain useful result 

 will be produced in any art by the use of certain means, is entitled to 

 a patent, provided he fully and accurately specifies the means. This 

 means need not be a machine or an apparatus ; it may be a process. 

 A machine is a thing. A process is a mode of action. The one is vis- 

 ible to the eye an object of per^Dctual observation. The other is a 



