Memoir of the Life of Eli Whitney. 235 



or any similar purpose, consists of two small rollers made of wood 

 or iron. In illustration of this point, plaintiff's counsel cited the opin- 

 ion of this court, delivered by Judge Johnson, in December term, 

 1807, in the case of Whitney and others vs. Fort, upon a bill for 

 injunction. 



The second objection relied on by the defendant, was "that the 

 specification does not contain the whole truth respecting the discov- 

 ery." To this it was answered, that by the testimony it appears Mr. 

 Whitney in the original construction of his machine, contemplated 

 each mode of making the teeth, and doubted which mode was best 

 adapted to the purpose. If the alteration which forms the basis of 

 this objection has the merit of an improvement, how far does it ex- 

 tend ? An improvement, not in the principle, nor in the operation of 

 the machine, but in making one of its component parts; merely in 

 forming the same thing, to produce the same effect, by means some- 

 what different. In the case above cited. Judge Johnson remarked 

 on this point, as follows : 



" A Mr. Holmes has cut teeth in plates of iron, and passed them 

 over the cylinder. This is certainly a meritorious improvement in 

 the mechanical process of constructing this machine — But at last, 

 what does it amount to, except a more convenient mode of making 

 the same thing ? Every characteristic of Mr. Whitney's machine is 

 preserved — The cylinder, the iron tooth, rotatory motion of the 

 tooth, the breast work and brush; and all the merit that this discov- 

 ery can assume, is that of a more expeditious mode of attaching the 

 tooth to the cylinder." 



The counsel for Whitney, admitted that an improvement in a par- 

 ticular part of the machine, would entide the inventor to a patent for 

 a new and better mode of making that specific part, but not for the 

 whole machine, as in the case Boulton vs. Bull, where a patent was 

 granted for an invention to lessen the quantity of fuel in the use of a 

 certain Steam Engine : It was decided " that the patent was valid, 

 for this improvement ; but that it gave no tide to the engine itself." 



It was also stated, that by experiments made on plaintiffs model in 

 the face of the court and jury, and by testimony produced, it was ap- 

 parent, no improvement had resulted from this alteration ; that no 

 beneficial change, or amendment in the principle had taken place ; 

 nor had the effect been aided or facilitated. In the charge of the 

 court to the jury, Judge Stephens remarked, that, the case cited, 

 Whitney and others vs. Fort, was decided without any evidence on 



