A Paper read by Mr. F. W. Winter before the Mechanical Section of the Engineers Society of Western Pennsylvania.

Engineer

, should have a general knowledge as to what rights they have in inventions made by themselves, or by those associated with them, the manner of securing and enforcing those rights and, in general, to be in possession of such information on the subject as to be able to act advisedly in regard thereto.

Basis of our patent system. The patent statutes of the United States are based upon Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, which provides that Congress shall have the power to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to inventors the exclusive right to their respective discoveries.

This constitutional provision gives the underlying principle of our patent statutes, and shows that the reward of the inventor is not the primary object aimed at. But it is a necessary incident. The framers of the Constitution perceived that the progress of science and the useful arts could best be promoted by furnishing an incentive to make improvements, and that the best incentive is some personal reward or advantage to the inventor. Accordingly an inventor for a ceitain period is given an exclusive right to his inventions and discoveries, that is, a monopoly. As a consideration he is required to describe and illustrate the invention in his patent specification and drawings so fully and clearly that a person skilled in the industry to which the invention relates can make and use the invention ; to the end that after the monopoly has expired the public will be able to use and derive benefit therefrom.

Therefore an inventor applying for a patent must disclose his entire invention, the principle thereof, and the best manner of applying the same. He cannot withhold any part thereof; otherwise the patent will be void. If he wishes to keep the whole or any part of his invention secret, the patent statutes give him no aid. This statement is ventured because the writer has been asked to secure patents for inventions which the inventors did not care to disclose fully even to their attorney. Clearly all such efforts are futile.

What is patentable? The statutes provide for the grant of patents for new or useful arts, machines, man-ufaetures, compositions of matter, improvements and designs.

The term " art " covers what are ordinarily known as methods or processes where the improvement consists in the manner or mode of accomplishing the result, as distinguished from the mechanical appliances necessary for this purpose.

The term " machine " is self-explanatory.

The term "composition of matter" covers all mixtures of several ingredients whether chemical combinations or mechanical mixtures. Soaps, powders, paints, etc., are examples of well known compositions of matter.

A " manufacture," in the meaning of the patent statutes, is anything made by the hand of man and which is subject to manufacture and sale. This term is a broad and elastic one, and the interpretation given to it by the courts bring within it the inventions which cannot properly be classified under the other heads.

The term "improvement" in the statutes is largely superfluous, for in a sense every improved device is a new device; or, vice versa, most new devices are merely improvements over prior devices. In the history of our patent system there have been but few generically new devices or processes.

The inventor need not concern himself under which one of the statutory classes his invention belongs. Neither do the patent offices and the courts concern themselves with this question, it being sufficient that the invention is new, and that it marks an advance in science and the useful arts. The statutory classes of mechanical inventions will be stretched to cover it.

The term "design " in the patent statutes has a different meaning from what it has in engineering, where it is often used to mean a new plan or arrangement of mechanical parts for getting new or improved functions. For instance, a new design of motor is a new motor.

All such matters in the eye of the patent statutes are subjects for mechanical and not for design patents. The term "design" in the statutes is limited to matters of ornament or configuration appealing to the aesthetic sense, and not to utility; such as a new design for spoons, jewelry, vases and the like.

Utility. An improvement to be patentable must be useful. This does not mean that the device must be more efficient or eeonomical than prior devices of the same kind. The degree of utility is not inquired into by the patent office.

If a device is incapable of producing any results whatsoever, it is inoperative and not patentable. So, too, if the device is injurious to the morals, health or good order of society, it is not useful within the meaning of the patent statutes. Upon this ground the patent office refuses to grant, and the courts refuse to sustain patents for deleterious compositions and compounds of food products and the like, and for devices which can be used only for immoral or unlawful purposes. The more completely such an invention could perform its functions the more objectionable it would be for want of utility.

If, however, a device is capable of a good result it is patentable, even though it may be used for some unlawful or immoral purpose. The evil in sueh case is not inherent in the invention, but it is a fault of the user, for which the latter, and not the inventor, is punishable-Subject to the exception in regard to the utility of an invention, it is a general rule that all changes or or improvements, whether mechanical electrical, chem. cal, structural, or otherwise, in a method or process, tool, machine, appliance, device, manufactured article or composition of matter, in all arts are patentable providing they are new and are the result of invention. The statutory classes of invention have been given a sufficiently broad and elastic interpretation to cover the whole range of human activities and industries.