The Washington union., 1857-11-12

Gently made Dy HON. Joseph noit inc new toHimtb-
sioner Of Patents. 1t will be read with deep inter-
est by inventors and others in all parts of the Union
10 Use the language OF learned contemporary Of
the Scientific American, tho decision not only con
firms our previous high estimate of the talents,
eompshnents, and administrative qualifications of
Mr. Commissioner Holt, but ''forcshadows the in
auguration Of line Of future official action that
suits y
COMMISSIONER noLT's DECISION.
UNITED STATES PATENT OrrIcE,
October 49, 1857.
In the matter of Daniel b. Badgers application for a
patent iron BEAM to be used n the construction of
buildings and which, made in pursuance of tho speci
6cation is claimed to be article of manufac-
ture
fore me ON appeal referred to board Of examiners,
who differ widely in regard to the principal question in
vcved but conclude their report by deciding that in view
Of the reference given application of Adrian James
rejected ON the 28th day of May 1s50a patent should
not be allowed Under these circumstances concurrng
AZ do in the determination arrived at It is somewhat
irregular my part to discuss the principles commented
upon In the examiners report. am urged, however, to
do no. both by the board and by the applicant counsel
ah Ii; hops d establishing uniform rule V action than
s heretofore preraled e Office regard 70 this class Of IN
ratons have looked accordingly, into the authorities
bearing upon the subject and submit briefly the conc
sions to which they have led me
Il is objected that this beam could not be patented be-
cause is insisted IL Is not "a now article OF manufac-
turc." 1t is admitted that it is not an 'art, nor
'machne " nor yet "a composition oil matter, as that
term is universally interpreted Ii, them 1t Is not "a
new manufacture" ]" nor and useful Improvement
upon SUCH IL nondescript, far rs patent law Is
concerned and whatever may be its merits on the score
of novelty utility, and invention it cannot be patented
because it finds place in the statutory catalogue This
renders it necessary to define if practicable with some
degree of precision the import of this term The familiar
etymology of the word manufacturc Indicates that 1t
originally implied something made by the hand OF man
but 1t has long since ougrown this primitive and narrow
Specification, and, keeping pace with human progress it
has ut last to include alike the process Of brica
ton and every object upon which art skill has been
exercised whereby product has been fabricated either
by the hand Of by the labor he directs, webster
Patcnts.) This broad though sufficiently accurate
definition, would embrace machines, which certainly,
strictly speaking, 'n,Gnufactures the latter con-
stuting genus Of which the former but species
SO far as relates to machines the statute, therefore,
must be regarded presenting, in fact, double
% which is interesting to note, because manesting the
extreme solicude OF the legislature to cover with its
protection, the whole field of useful invention
1t is often embarrassing question whether particu-
lar Invention is "a new manufacture or only an i'm
provcmcnt upon manufacture already subsisting and
known and it is not easy to lay down rule which
would, ut all times solve this perpexng problem. 1t
may be safely held however that ii the invention only
noties pre-existng manufacture, and by that moditi
cation merely improves, without essentially changing
Its character ad functions to destroy its identity 1t
will be but on improvement and should be claimed
This question should bc treated as OF really but little
practical importance. BY laws the specification is
made part and parcel of the patent and If the invention
be therein correctly set FORTH no msappcaon of terms
In the designation of the claim will vtate the patenta
r it should not be allowed to prejudice the applica
ton II should ut most, furnish grounds for sugges
o on the part of the Office whereby the might be
corrected 1t is not assumed in this particular that
ofIn,,f fhun That nvnh
could, within the range Of the patent law, have been
given to the invention The position maintained IL that
the beam is not, in point of fact, "a manufnc-
ure There file the afdayits Of three practical
mechanics who represent themselves well acquainted
with the various kinds OF iron beams used in the
sruction Of buildings, and who, therefore, sustain to
this issue the relation of experts After comparing the
beam of Badger with those which have preceded it, they
declare that they regard II "a article of manufac
ture Their judgment, mcontrndicted is entitled to
the greatest weight Coyon ION Patcns holds this lam
guage The amount of difference from existing things
requisite to constitute the result Of the improvement or
discovery "A new manufacture, is in every case, question
Of ,t be referred 10 Tie particular brunch Of industry 10 afch
Is applied and requiring accurate acquaintance with
the state of manufactures, rather than knowledge of
general jurisprudence for its determination"
The obccting examiner is understood to assert in ef
feet that this beam is in manufacture, because
not an article of merchandise and that it is not pacnta-
he ior the reason that 1t is wanting in invention In re-
gard 10 the first feature of the for
the sake of the argument that manufacture is
sarily yendblc and merchantable-I think the beam
comes fully up to the requirements of the examiners
definition. Like door and window frames and other
heavy articles of iron which enter extensively into
buildings is made for sae and s in fact bought and
sold, and forms much article of merchandise, ms
legitimate an object of commerce paper of pins.
confess myself unable to perceive the strength Of the posi-
ton taken, that it is at BEST but ian improvement in
chitcctural materials, and cannot be ranked rs manu-
faeturo because its utility only be tested realized
when it is FUSED In some other and further connexion'
than that which occupies in the workshop in other
words only when it has been placed in position in the
building The thing It seems to me, might he said
OF the plough, whose merits only demonstrated after
has buried its share in the field which it Is destined to
turrow and Of countless multitude of similar nven-
tons The reference given, being out of view, and the
novelty and utility Of this beam being conceded should
therefore, not have hcsitacd to grant patent for 1t
new article OF manufacture, and useful inn
Woremcnt thereon, the facts might have warranted
Nor should have delayed my Judgment in the matter
until could have instituted elaborate and critical
analysis Of the process of labor mental and physical
through which the inventor had probably passed with
view OF asccrtanng the amount Of invention which has
been called into exercise regard such method OF in
yotgation dcsve and unsatisfactory in its results
We know that of the most important and valuable
discoveries which have marked the progress Of the arts
and sciences have been the effect Of accident the sug
gson OF some stray but happy thought which came as
IL We're unbdden while on the other hand, men have
exhausted their incllccs and their lives in fashoning,
comning and maturing the most abstsc processes and
machinery, without having contributed dollar to the
ness. The law essentially practical in its judgments,
looks only to the fruit of the invention and if it finds
there the Indispensable features of novelty and utility it
viii presume sufficient amount of invention TO support