THE LAW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. 375 



conception of the mind seen only by the effect it produces while per- 

 formed. But either may be the means of producing a useful result. 

 The mixing of certain substances together or the heating of a sub- 

 stance to a certain temperature is a process. If the mode of doing it 

 or the apparatus in or by which it may be done is sufficiently obvious 

 to suggest itself to a person skilled in the particular art, then pointing 

 out in the patent the process to be performed is sufficient, without giv- 

 ing directions, which would be supererogatory, as to the apparatus or 

 method to be employed. If the mode of applying the process is not 

 obvious, then to give a description of the process and of one particular 

 mode by which it may be applied is sufficient. It may be that the 

 process is susceptible of being applied in many modes and by the use 

 of many forms of apparatus ; but the inventor, if really the discoverer 

 of the process, is not bound to describe all these in order to secure his 

 exclusive right to it. What is required is, that he shall describe some 

 particular mode or apparatus so as to show that the process is capable 

 of being exhibited and jDerformed in actual use. This is the latest 

 utterance of the Supreme Court on the lawfulness of a patent for a 

 process. 



A decision comes from England bearing upon the value of such 

 patents. The inventor of an improved process for making salicylic 

 acid obtained a patent in England ; but was soon undersold by an in- 

 ventor of a rival process, who established a factory in Germany and 

 brought the acid manufactured there into England for sale. The pat- 

 entee brought suit. The counsel for the German manufacturer argued 

 that the patent forbade only manufacturing in England, It did not 

 forbid manufacturing in Germany, and any goods lawfully manufact- 

 ured in Germany might be brought into England for sale. " Sup- 

 pose," said he, " some one patents a process for making flour by crush- 

 ing wheat instead of grinding it, and French millers, generally, adopt 

 the mode. Is it thereafter unlawful to import flour from France ? " 

 But the Court of Appeal decided in favor of the patentee, saying that 

 the exclusive right secured by a patent for a process must be consid- 

 ered to include a monopoly of the sale in England of products made 

 according to the process, no matter where they are manufactured. 

 For these patents expressly forbid any person directly or indirectly to 

 use the process. Now, a person who procures the product to be made 

 in a foreign country and then brings it to England for sale is certainly 

 using the invention "indirectly." 



Many illustrations are noticed in recent books of reports, of the 

 expense and loss sustained by inventors through obtaining patents for 

 trivial devices. They know, theoretically, that a patent, to be sus- 

 tained in the courts, must be for an invention which is " new and use- 

 ful " ; but fail, practically, to apply the test. Evidently the existing 

 system tends to betray an over-sanguine inventor. A solicitor of 

 patents will cheerfully take a fee and undertake to obtain letters. 



