6h THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



accordance with our guide, any other substance having similar proper- 

 ties and producing substantially the same effect. 



So mubh for the first class of cases, which at first sight are appar- 

 ently novel, but which in reality are not novel, so as to be patentable. 



Another class of cases against which the verdict of " no novelty " 

 must be pronounced is where a new use is made of an old invention. 

 This is no new invention. The mere application of an old invention 

 or means or method of operation to a new use does not amount to a 

 patentable novelty. There is nothing new made by such a proceeding. 

 The use of the thing is perhaps enlarged and that is all. It was upon 

 this principle that adverse decisions were rendered to the claimants in 

 the cases of Losh vs. Hague, and Howe vs. Abbott. In the first of 

 these, which is reported in 1 Webster's Patent Cases, 205, it was held 

 that the application to railway-carriages of a kind of wheel previously 

 in use on common carriages would not support a patent. In the sec- 

 ond case, which is reported in 2 Story, 190, the patentee claimed as his 

 invention a process of curling palm-leaf for mattresses. It appeared 

 from the evidence that horse-hair had for a long time been prepared by 

 the same process and devoted to the same purpose. In delivering his 

 opinion Judge Story said : " The application of an old process to manu- 

 facture an article to which it had never before been applied, is not a 

 patentable invention. There must be some new process or some new 

 machinery used to produce the result. . . . He who produces an old 

 result by a new mode or process is entitled to a patent for that mode 

 or process. But he can not have a patent for a result merely without 

 using some new mode or process to produce it." 



Allied to this question of double use is the question whether a 

 patent can be taken for a particular use of a known machine, when 

 the plaintiff is the first to discover the benefit of such use. As may 

 be supposed, from the place in which I have inserted this question, the 

 answer is "No." And there is justice in the answer; for a man is 

 entitled to all the benefit of an article which he has invented and pat- 

 ented. The man who happens to discover an additional use to which 

 the invention may be applied does not by that discovery and applica- 

 tion create a patentable novelty. He devises no new combination of 

 machinery, no new process. Hear what Lord Chelmsford said on the 

 subject. His opinion is to be found in Ralston vs. Smith, 11 H. L. C, 

 256. In this case, by the way, the plaintiff had discovered that by 

 giving a differential motion to different parts of an old machine, a 

 power existing in it might be developed and brought into action. Lord 

 Chelmsford, after stating that he saw no new process, or new combina- 

 tion of machinery, said, " It appears to me that such a discovery is 

 not the subject of a patent." And the same doctrine is laid down in 

 the case of Tetley vs. Easton, 2 C. B. (N. S.), 706. 



There is another class of cases which demands attention. It some- 

 times happens that a man seeks a patent for a mere aggregation of 



