Am.  Jour.  Pharm.  "1 
December,  1898.  J 
Product  Patents. 
597 
Decisions  by  courts  of  last  resort  are  not  wanting  in  which  this 
opinion  seems  to  be  sustained.  Frequently  have  the  claims  of 
patents  been  rejected  and  stricken  out  on  account  of  being  broad 
enough  to  kill  all  competitive  exercise  of  the  inventive  faculty  dur- 
ing the  life  of  the  patent. 
A  notable  instance  being  the  Morse  Telegraph  Patent ;  the  eighth 
claim  of  this  patent  was  construed  by  the  Supreme  Court  to  be  for 
the  use  of  the  electric  current  for  making  intelligible  signs  at  any 
distance.  The  Supreme  Court  held  this  claim  to  be  void.  (O'Reilly 
v.  Morse,  15  Howard,  112,  1853.) 
This  patent,  if  granted,  would  have  covered  the  use  of  a  principle 
and  shut  out  from  all  competitors  the  use  of  the  electric  current  for 
telegraphic  purposes ;  "  any  new  and  useful  improvement "  over 
Morse's  invention  could  not  have  been  utilized.  In  clear  distinction 
to  this  in  the  line  of  chemical  patents,  stands  the  process  patent  or 
a  patent  for  an  art  (in  a  patent  law  sense);  in  granting  which,  of 
course,  the  proof  of  exercise  of  the  inventive  faculty  is  and  should 
be  demanded.  Pettit  (law  of  inventions,  1895)  defines  process  in  its 
patent  law  sense  in  the  following  terms  :  "  A  process  may  be  said 
to  be  a  directing  or  training  of  a  force  in  a  given  manner  through 
the  medium  of  physical  agents  applied  to  material  objects,  whereby 
are  produced  material  effects." 
Probably  one  of  the  best  illustrations  of  a  chemical  process  patent 
was  that  granted  to  Richard  Tilghman,  of  Philadelphia,  for  the 
manufacture  of  glycerine  by  the  action  of  super-heated  steam  upon 
tats. 
The  claim  of  this  patent  was  for  u  the  manufacture  of  fat  acids 
and  glycerine  from  fatty  bodies  by  the  action  of  water  at  a  high 
temperature  and  pressure." 
Had  Tilghman  been  able  to  claim  the  invention  of  the  product, 
glycerine  (discovered  by  Chevreul  in  1 813),  he  would  never  have 
been  called  upon  to  defend  his  patent  by  suing  Proctor  for  infringe- 
ment, because  no  matter  what  improvements  Proctor  did  or  hoped 
to  make,  would  be  shut  out  by  the  stone  wall  of  an  end  product 
patent,  during  its  term.  To  illustrate  the  advantages  enjoyed  by 
the  chemical  patentee  who  is  lucky  enough  to  secure  a  product 
patent  over  his  confrere  who  invents  a  machine,  the  following  is  a 
good  illustration.  A  patent  was  granted  upon  a  machine  for  sawing 
shingles;  another  was  granted  for  an  improvement  consisting  of  the 
