376 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



The patent-office Avill accept further fees ; will make an examination 

 for novelty, Avhich is good, as far as it goes, and in some measure a pro- 

 tection against launching an unprofitable venture ; and will grant a 

 patent. A lawyer will readily spend a few hundred dollars in organiz- 

 ing a company, and will execute his task skillfully : he has no respon- 

 sibility for the mercantile value of the project. Two or three thousand 

 dollars more are easily expended in facilities for manufacture, in start- 

 ing a sales-room, and in advertising. And yet, after all this expendi- 

 ture, involving also the inventor's time, the moment the patent is con- 

 tested by an infringer, the courts may pronounce it void for want of 

 novelty. Kotice recent examples. The " Perfection Window-Clean- 

 er " was in substance a rubber mounted on a long handle convenient 

 for reaching up to clean lofty windows and the like ; the peculiarity 

 of the device consisting in the way in which a cushion for rubbing 

 was adjusted so that it could be pressed against the surface to be 

 cleaned. The Court said that there was nothing new in this ; the im- 

 plement was only a mop or scrubbing-brush made of India-rubber. 

 " Improved Kindling- Wood " was patented, consisting of wood tied 

 in small bundles, each containing a lump of combustible matter which 

 would take fire from a common match. The Court said that there was 

 no more invention in this than there would be in selling a sherry-cob- 

 bler glass Avith a straw in it, or a can of food with a fork. As at first 

 devised, the " Fare-Box " used in city omnibuses and street-cars was 

 inefficient for want of an opportunity to the driver to see whether the 

 projDcr fare had been put in. Some one obtained a patent for the im- 

 provements of fitting a second window, and a reflector, in such manner 

 that the driver might, either by day or night, see the coin which had 

 been dej^osited. With these changes the fare-box became a success. 

 But the Court said that there was no invention in inserting an addi- 

 tional window, or in putting a reflector near a lamp. To relieve 

 drivers from the necessity of buying a new whip because the tip-end 

 had become frayed or broken while the stock remained good, an in- 

 ventor contrived " Whip-Tips " with sockets, so that a worn one might 

 be unscrewed and a new one screwed on in its place. The Court said 

 that he might sustain an exclusive right to his screw, but that the im- 

 portant feature of the device making independent tips to be substi- 

 tuted for worn ones was not new ; this is the principle upon which 

 fishing-rods in sections have been made for many years. The " Rub- 

 ber-tip Pencil " has had an extensive sale ; but, when the patent for it 

 was contested, the Court said that there was no invention ; the device 

 was nothing but " a piece of rubber with a hole in it." Not many 

 years ago a patent Avas questioned for an article called " Comminuted 

 Glue." The device consisted in breaking glue into small particles, of 

 uniform size, to facilitate dissolving it for use. The Court said that 

 nothing was here involved other than grinding glue fine, and grind- 

 ing can not be called a new invention. A score of such decisions might 



