Case Name: Sewall v. Jones
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1875-10
Citations: 91 U.S. 171
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sewall v. Jones.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 91
Pages: 171–199

Head Matter:
Sewall v. Jones.
1. Patents No. 34,928, dated April 8, 1862,- and No. 35,274, dated May 13,1882, issued to Isaac Winslow for a new and useful improvement in preserving Indian corn, are void for want of novelty.
2. To entitle a party to recover for the violation of a patent, he must he the original inventor, not only in relation to the United States, hut to other parts of the world.
3. When a patentee recommends in his specifications a particular method, he does not thereby constitute it a portion of his patent.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maine.
This suit was brought by Jones, assignee of Winslow? against Clark, and revived after Ms death, against Sewáll, his administrator. Jones alleged that Clark had infringed certain patents for an improvement in preserving Indian com, granted to Wins-low ; and he prayed for an injunction and an account. A decree was rendered for the complainant. . The defendant appealed.
Four patents were granted to Winslow; but it is only necessary to set forth two which were held good in the court below. The principal defence relied on was that they were void for want of novelty.
These two patents of Winslow and the specification 'of Du-rand’s patent, which is mentioned in the opinion of the court, are as follows: —
“No. 34,928.
“ The United States of America, to all to whom these letters-patent shall come: —
“ Whereas Isaac Winslow, of Philadelphia, Penn., has alleged that he has invented a new and useful improvement in preserving green corn (he having assigned his right, title, and interest in said invention to John W. Jones of Portland, Me.), which he states has not been known or used before his application; has made affirmation that he is a citizen of the United States; that he does verily believe that he is the original and first inventor or discoverer of the said invention, and that the same hath not, to the best of his knowledge and belief, been previously known or used; has paid into the treasury of the United States the sum of thirty dollars, and presented a petition to the Commissioner of Patents, signifying a-desire of obtaining an exclusive property in the said invention, and praying that a patent may be granted for that purpose : —.
“ These are, therefore, to grant, according to law, to- the said John W. Jones, his heirs, administrators, or assigns, for the term of seventeen years from the eighth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, the full and exclusive ri^ht and liberty of making, constructing, using, and vending to others to be used, the said invention, a description whereof is given in the words of the said Isaac Winslow in the schedule hereunto annexed, and is made part of these presents.
' “ In testimony whereof, I have caused these letters to be made patent, and the seal of the Patent Office has been hereunto affixed.
“ Given under my hand, at the city of Washington, this eighth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the independence of the United States of America the eighty-sixth.
“ Caleb B. Smith, Secretary of the Interior.
“ Countersigned, and sealed with the seal of the Patent Office.
“ [l. s.] D. P. Holloway, Commissioner of Patents!
The schedule referred to in these letters-patent, and making part of the same, is as follows: —
“To all whom it may concern: —
“ Be it known that I, Isaac Winslow, of Philadelphia, in the county of Philadelphia and State of Pennsylvania, have invented a new and useful improvement in preserving Indian corn in the green state; and I hereby declare that the following is a full and exact description thereof: —
“ In my first attempt to preserve Indian corn in the green state, without drying the same, I did not remove the kernels from the cob. The article thus obtained was very bulky, and, when used, the peculiar sweetness was lost, the same being absorbed, as I suppose, by the cob. After a great variety of experiments, I have overcome the difficulties of .preserving Indian corn in the green state without drying the same, thus retaining the milk and other juices and the full flavor of fresh green corn until the latter is desired for use. Instead of a hard, insipid, or otherwise unpalatable article, I have finally succeeded in producing an entirely satisfactory article of' manufacture, in which my invention consists. I have employed several methods of treatment of the green corn with good .results. My first success was obtained by the following process : The kernels, being removed from the cob, were immediately packed in cans, and the latter hermetically sealed, so as to prevent the esc'ape of the natural aroma of the corn, or the evaporation of the milk or other juices of the same, . Then I submitted the sealed cans and their contents to boiling or steam heat about four hours. In this way the milk and other juices of the corn are coagulated, as far as may be; boiling thus preventing the putrefaction of these more easily destructible constituents. At the same time, the1 milk and other juices are neither diluted nor washed away, as would be more or less the case if the kernels were mixed with water and boiled.- By this method of cooking green corn in the vapor of its juices, as it were, the ends of-thje sealed cans are bulged out, as though putrefaction and the escape of the resulting gases had commenced within the cans. Consequently, strong cans are required; and dealers are likely to be prejudiced against com thus put up; I recommend the following method: Select á superior quality of sweet corn in the green state, and remove the kernels from the cob by means of a curved and gauged knife, or other suitable means. Then pack these kernels in cans, and hermetically seal the latter so as to prevent evaporation under heat or the escape of the aroma of the corn. Now expose these cans of corn to steam or boiling heat for about one hour and a half; then puncture the cans, and immediately seal the same while hot, and continue the heat, for about two hours and a half longer. Afterwards the cans may be slowly cooled in a room at the temperature of seventy to one hundred degrees Fahrenheit. Indian corn thus packed and treated may be warranted to keep in any climate. Being preserved in its natural state as near as possible, it retains the peculiar sweetness, and flavor of fresh corn right from the growing field. It is only necessary to heat this preserved corn, and season the same, in order to prepare it for the table, as it is fully cooked in process of preserving. Other methods of treatment may be adopted without departing from my invention, so long as the hermetical sealing and use of the heat are so managed as to-secure the aroma and fresh flavor, and prevent putrefaction; thus producing the new article of manufacture' substantially described.
“ Having thus fully described my invention, what X claim and desire to secure by letters-patent from the United States is the above-described new article of manufacture; namely, Indian corn when preserved in the green state, without drying the same, the kernels being removed from the cob, hermetically sealed and heated, substantially in the manner and for the purpose set forth.
“ Isaac Winslow.”
“No. 35,274.
“ The United States of America to all to whom these letters-patent shall come: —
“ Whereas Isaac Winslow, of Philadelphia, Penn., has alleged that he has invented a new and- useful improvement in preserving green corn (he having assigned his right, title, and interest in said improvement to' John W. Jones of Portland, Me.), which he states has not been known or used before his application; has made affirmation that he is a citizen of the United States; that he does verily believe that he is the original and first inventor or discoverer of the said improvement, and that the same hath not, to the best of his knowledge and belief, been previously known or used; has paid into the treasury of the United States the sum of thirty-five dollars, and presented a petition to the Commissioner of Patents, signifying a desire of obtaining ap exclusive property in the said improvement, and praying that a patent maybe granted for that purpose: —
“ These are, therefore, to .grant, according to law, to' the. said John W. Jones, his heirs, administrators, or assigns, for the term of seventeen years from the thirteenth .day of May, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, the full and exclusive right and liberty of making,- constructing, using, and vending to others to be used, the said improvement, a description whereof is given in the words of the said Isaac Winslow in the schedule hereunto annexed, and is made a part of these presents.
“ In testimony whereof, I have caused these letters to be made patent, and the seal of the Patent Office has been hereunto affixed.
“Given under my hand, at the city of Washington, this thirteenth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the independence of the United States of America the eighty-sixth.
“ Caleb B. Smith, Secretary of the Interior.
“ Countersigned and sealed with the seal of the Patent Office.
“[l. s.] D. P. Holloway, Commissioner of Patents?
The schedule referred to in these letters-patent, and making part of the same, is as follows: — .
“ To all whom it may concern: —
“ Be it known that I, Isaac Winslow, of Philadelphia, in the county of Philadelphia, and State of Pennsylvania, havé invented a new and useful improvement in preserving green corn; and I do hereby declare that the following is a full and exact description thereof, reference being had to the accompanying drawings, and to the letters of reference marked thereon : —
“ It has long been common to boil green or unripened Indian corn, or maize, and then dry the same for winter-use. But corn thus dried, when prepared for the table by again boiling, is more or less hard and. insipid, having lost the fine flavor of fresh green corn.
“ If ears of corn be boiled, and then hermetically sealed in cans, the cob seems to absorb the sweetness of the kernels; or if. the kernels are removed from the cob after boiling, and then preserved, the finest flavor of the natural corn is lost. After many and varied attempts to preserve green corn without drying the same, finding ■ that I did not obtain a satisfactory result, I finally conceived the idea of first removing the corn from the" cob, and then boiling or cooking the kernels thus separated, and preserving them. But this was met by a new difficulty. The kernels of com being somewhat broken by removal from the cob, the milk and other juices were dissolved out in the.process .of boiling; and thus the corn was left insipid and unpalatable. I then attempted to cook the coni '■faith-out contact with water, by exposing the cans containing the corn to boiling water.
“ This mode of preserving 1 found unsatisfactory. The. milk of the corn was evaporated, and the corn more or less dried, whilst a long time was requisite to cook the corn sufficiently for preservation. Finally I adopted the process of removing the corn from the cob, packing the kernels in cans, hermetically sealing the same, and then- boiling the cans until the corn contained therein became' 'Completely cooked. The result of this process was extraordinary, the com being of finer flavor than corn fresh from the field when ■ boiled upon the cob in the usual way. Since this discovery, I have adopted the practice of boiling or steaming the cans containing the' corn-kernels thus sealed about four hours, though a shorter time may answer for most purposes.
“ The cans should.be very strong, to prevent their' bursting by . heat. I have sometimes practised" puncturing the cans after they are well heated, -— say for ten minutes. This allows the air to. escape; when I immediately reseal the cans, so as to prevent the/ evaporation of the juices of the corn or-'the loss of the natural' aroma. - '
“This puncturing has two advantages: it prevents the possible bursting of the cans; and allows the heads of the cans to prOss inward when cool, so that dealers can see by this test that the com is perfectly preserved.. When the cans are not punctured, their ends will remain pressed' outward after cooling, and yet the. corn is perfectly preserved.’ The above-described process of removing the com from the cob, and then preserving the kernels, affords several advantages • over any method of preserving corn heretofore known. Among these advantages are the following: 1st, The pe-' exiliar sweetness and excellent flavor of the . corn thus preserved, these qualities being consequent upon retaining all the.milk and other juices, together with its fine natural aroma; 2d, The economy of space in boiling and packing, and convenience of handling, transportation, and sale. Having thus fully described my improved process, what I claim, and.desire, to secure by letters-patent of the United States, is the above-described process of first removing the corn from the cob,,and then preserving the kernels substantially in the manner' and for the purposes set forth.
“ Isaac Winslow.”
“ Witnesses:
“ Samuel C. Ogle. •
■ “ William Ogle.”
• Preserving Animal and Vegetable Pood. —Durand's Specification.
“To all to whom, these presents shall come:— •
“ I, Peter Durand, of' Hoxton Square, in the county of Middlesex, merchant, send greeting: —
“ Whereas his most excellent Majesty King George the Third did by his letters-patent, under the great seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, bearing date at Westminster the twenty-fifth day of August, in the fiftieth year of his. reign, give and grant unto me, the said Peter Durand, my executors, administrators, and assigns, his special license, full power, sole privilege and authority, that I, the said Peter Durand, my executors, administra^ tors, and assigns, during the term therein mentioned, should and lawfully migtit make, use-, exercise, and vend, within England,Wales, and the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, an invention communicated to me by a certain foreigner residing abroad, of the method of ‘ preserving animal food, vegetable food, and other perishable articles, a long time from perishing or becoming useless; ’ in which said letters-patent there is contained a proviso, obliging me, the said Peter Durand, by an instrument in writing under my hand and seal, to cause a particular description of the nature of the said invention, and in what manner the same is to be performed, to be enrolled in his Majesty’s High Court of Chancery within six calendar months after the date of the said recited letters-patent, as in and by the same, relation being thereunto had, may more fully and at large appear: —
' “How know ye, that, in compliance with the said .proviso, I, the said Peter Durand, do hereby declare that the nature of the said invention, and the manner in which the same is to be performed, are particularly described and ascertained as follows-; that is to say: —
“ First, I place and enclose the said food or articles, in bottles or other vessels of glass, pottery, tin, or other metals or fit materials; and I do close the aperture of such containing vessels, so as completely to cut off and exclude all communication with the external air; and as to the method of closing, I do avail myself of the usual means of corking, airing, luting, or cementing; and in large vessels I make use of corks formed of pieces glued together in such a manner as that the pores of that substance shall be in a cross-direction with regard to the aperture into which such corks are to be driven; and I do also, in such vessels as may admit of oí require the same, make use of stoppers fitted or ground with emery, or screw-caps,with or without a ring of leather or other soft substance between the faces of closure, and also of cocks or cross-plugs or covers of leather, cloth, parchment, bladder, and the like.
Secondly, When the vessels have been - thus charged and well closed, I do place them in a boiler, each separately surrounded with straw, or wrapped in coarse cloth, or otherwise defended from striking against jeach other; and I fill the said • boiler so as to cover the vessels with cold water, which I gradually heat to boiling, and continue the ebullition for a certain time, which must depend upon the nature of the substances included in the vessels, and the size of the said vessels, and other obvious circumstances, which will be easily apprehended by the operator without further instructions. Vegetable substances are to be put into the vessel in a raw or crude state, and animal substances partly or half cooked, although these may also be put in raw. The food or other articles thus prepared may be kept for a very long time in a state fit for use, care being taken that the .vessel shall not be opened until their said contents shall be wanted for consumption.
“ And, lastly, I do declare, that although the. application of the water-bath,' as hereinbefore described, may be the most commodious and convenient, I do likewise avail myself of the application of heat by placing the said vessel in an oven, or a stove, or a steam-bath, or any other fit situation for gradually and uniformly raising the-temperature of the same, and suffering them to cool again; and, further, that I do, as the choice of the consumer or the nature of the said food or other articles may render preferable, leave the aperture of the vessel, or' a small portion thereof, open until the-effect of the heat shall have taken place, at which period I close the same.
In- witness whereof, I, the said Peter Durand, have hereunto set my hand and seal the thirtieth day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ten.
“ Peter Durand, [l. s.]
“ And be it remembered, that on the thirtieth day of August, in the year of oür Lord one thousand eight hundred and ten, the aforesaid Peter Durand came before our said lord the king in his chancery, and acknowledged the specification aforesaid, and all and every thing therein contained and specified in form above written; and also the specification aforesaid was stamped according to the tenor of the statute made for that purpose. Enrolled the thirtieth day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ten.”
Mr. JE. IF. Dickerson for appellant.
The process claimed is substantially described in specifications of Durand and Gunter published in the United States and England before the application for the patents in question. The original discovery was by Appert, a scientific Frenchman.
Mr. W. S. Clifford, contra.
The English patent of Durand was the invention of Appert; but the process described in Durand’s patent does not cover the invention of Winslow.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Hunt
delivered the opinion of the court..
Jones, as assignee of four several patents for a new and useful improvement in preserving Indian corn, brought his action against Clark, the original defendant, alleging infringements of the same. These patents were issued to Isaac Wins-low,'and were as follows: viz., No. 34,928, dated April 8,1862, " for a new and useful improvement in preserving Indian corn; " No. 35,274, dated May 13, 1862, "for a new and useful improvement in preserving green corn;h No. 35,346, dated May 20, 1862, and No. 36,326, dated Aug. 26,1862.
The two patents last above mentioned were declared and adjudged by the court below to be void; and from this judgment no appeal has been taken. They are no longey elements in the case before us, and are dismissed from further consideration.
The patent first mentioned is for an article of manufacture,— a result. The second one is for a process by which a result is obtained. The first is the more full, and embraces all that is contained in the second.
The first objection made to the patents is the want of novelty. It is contended that they were anticipated by the Appert process embodied in the Durand patent of 1810; also by the patent of Gunter of 1841, and by that of Wertheimer of 1842. It is au elementary proposition in patent law, that, to entitle a plain-. tiff- to recover for the violation of a patent, he must be the original inventor, not only in relation to the United States, but to other .parts of the world. Even if the plaintiff did not know that the discovery had been made before, still he cannot re-' cover if it has been in use or, described in public prints, and if he be not in truth the original inventor. Dawson v. Follen, 2 Wash. C. C. 311; Bedford v. Hunt, 1 Mas. 302.
Durand's patent is described in his specification, enrolled in the English Court of Chancery, as based " upon an invention communicated to him by a certain foreigner, residing abroad, of the manner of preserving aniihal food, vegetable food, and other perishable articles, a long time from perishing or becoming useless."
In-describing the nature of the invention and the manner in which the same is to be performed, he says, —•
" First, I place the said food or articles in bottles ,pf glass, pottery, tin, or other metals or fit materials, and I close the aperture so as •completely to cut off or exclude all communication with the external air; " and he describes the various means of effecting that purpose.
" Second, When the vessels are thus charged' and' well closed, I place them in a boiler, each separately surrounded with straw or wrapped .in a coarse cloth, or otherwise defended from striking . against each other. I fill the boiler so as to cover the vessels with . cold water, which I gradually heat to • boiling, and continue, the ebullition for a certain time, which must depend upon the nature .of the substances included in the vessels, and the size of the vessels, and other obvious circumstances which will be readily apprehended by the operator. Vegetable substances are to be put into the vessel in a raw or crude state, and animal substances .partly or half cooked, although these may also be put in raw."
The specification then declares that the inventor did avail himself of the application of heat by placing the vessel in an oven,- stove, steam-bath, or other fit situation for gradually and uniformly raising the temperature and suffering it to cool again, and that as the choice of the consumer or nature of the said food or other articles may render preferable, leave the aperture of the vessel, or a small portion thereof,, open until the effect of'the heat shall have taken place, at which period the same is to be closed.
The points following are embraced in this patent: — .
1. It is for the purpose of preserving for a long time -animal or vegetable food. ' -
2. The articles thus to be preserved are to be placed in tin or other vessels, so arranged as to exclude communication with the external air.
3. An aperture may be left in the vessel, at the choice of the operator, until the effect of the heat shall have taken place, when it is to be closed.
4. The vessels thus prepared áre placed in a boiler filled with cold water, which is heated to .'a boiling- point, which boiling shall be continued for such time as shall be required by the substances contained in the vessels.
5. Although a water-bath is preferred, the inventor declares that he avails himself of heat through an oven, stove, steam-bath, or any other situation fit for gradually raising the temperature and suffering it to cool again.
6. Vegetables are to be put into* the vessels in a raw or crude state; animal substances raw or partly cooked.
7. The invention is general in its terms, embracing all vegetables and all animal substances capable of being thus dealt with.
Winslow's patent of April 8, 1862, No. 34,928, is declared to be for an improvement in preserving Indian corn in the greenstate.
The letters-patent declare .-that the first " success of the inventor was obtained" by the following process: The kernels, being removed from the cob, were immediately packed in cans hermetically sealed, so as to prevent the escape of the natural aroma of the corn or the evaporation of the milk or other juices of the same. I then submitted the sealed cans and their contents to boiling or steam heat for about four hours. . . . By this method of cooking, green corn in the vapor of its juices, the ends of the cans are bulged out. Strong'cans aré required, and dealers are likely to be prejudiced against corn thus put up. I. recommend the following method: Select a superior quality of green corn in the natural state; remove the kernels from the cob by means of a curved and gauged knife, or other suitable •means; then pack in cans, hermetically seal the cans,-expose them to steam dr boiling heat for about an hour and a half; tlen puncture, seal while hot, and continue the heat for about two hours, and a half." At the close, the inventor says that what he claims to secure by the patent is the new article of manufacture; namely, Indian corn preserved in the green state-without drying, the kernels being removed from the cob, hermetically sealed, and heated as described.
Let us now state the points embraced in this, the plaintiff's patent, and compare them with the points heretofore stated as .included in the Durand patent.
1. Winslow's declared object is the preservation of Indian corn in the' green state.
Durand's is for preserving Indian corn not only, but all vegetable substances in their raw or crude state.
2. Winslow-recommends removing the kernels from the cob before the process of preservation'is commenced, placing the kernels in cans, sealing them, and exposing them- to heat.
Durand, not limiting himself -¿o the article of corn, provides that the articles to be preserved shall be placed in cans, and subjected to heat in the same manner, He does not stipulate or recommend that the- article shall be first removed from the cob, the vine, the twig, or whatever may be the natural support of the vegetable to be preserved, as the corn from the cob, the pea from its pod, the grape or the tomato from its vine, the peach from its steip, the berry from its stalk. Neither does he recommend that it shall not be so removed. His process embraces the- article in whatever form it may be presented. It is for the preservation of raw- or crude or. uncooked vegetables in whatever form they may be presented, and necessarily includes a case where they have been previously removed from their natural- support. A prior removal from the stalk would be the natural, and, in- many cases, a necessary proceeding.
3; Winslow directs that the kernels shall be subjected to the heat for a period of about one and a half hours before puncturing, and for about two- and a half hours after the puncturing. The .double"use of the word " about." indicates that the time is not to be considered as precisely -specified.
Durand directs that the boiling shall continue for such length of time as shall be required by the particular substances contained in the vessel. Corn, pease, tomatoes, peaches, berries, asparagus, may very likely require great difference in the time in which the heat shall be applied to.produce the required effect. In each case, that is to be the measure of the time.
4. Winslow says other modes may be adopted so long as hermetical- sealing and the use of heat are so managed as to secure the aroma and fresh flavor and prevent putrefaction.
Durand declares that he intends to include in his patent heat through an oven, stove, steam, or any other situation by which the temperature is gradually raised and suffered to cool again.
The same idea is put forth at the close of Winslow's specification, where he declares that what he claims by his patent is the manufacture of Indian corn in its green state, the kernels being removed from the cob, hermetically sealed, and heated.
We are of the opinion that the substance of all that is found in Winslow's patent had, nearly half á century before he obtained his patent, been put forth in Durand's patent. If Du-rand's patent were now in force in this country, and a suit brought upon it. against Jones, the claimant under Winslow, for an infringement, the right to recover could not be resisted. Durand would show a patent intended to effect the same' purpose,— to wit, the preservation of' vegetables for a long time; employing the same process, — to wit, the effect of heat upon vegetables placed in a metallic vessel, the gradual cooling of the same, hermetically sealed after puncture to allow the escape of gases. This is also Winslow's process.
To constitute an infringement, the thing used by the defendant must be such as substantially to embody the patentee's mode of operation, and thereby to attain the same kind of result as was reached by his invention. It is not necessary that thé defendant should employ the plaintiff's invention to as good advantage as he employed it, or that the result should be the same in degree; but it must be the same in kind. Winans v. Denmead, 15 How. 330.
To infringe a patent, it .is not necessary that the thing patented should be adopted in every particular. If the patent is adopted substantially by the defendants, they are guilty of infringement. Root v. Ball, 4 McLean, 177; Alden v. Deney, 1 Story C. C. 336.
In an action for infringement, the first question is, whether the.machine used by the defendant is substantially, in its principle and mode of operation, like the plaintiff's. If so, it is an infringement to use' it. Howe v. Abbott, 2 Story C. C. 190; Parker v. Haunth, 4 McLean, 370.
If he has taken, the same plan and applied it to the same purpose, notwithstanding he may have.varied the process of the application, his manufacture will be substantially identical with that of the patentee. ' Cur.tis, sect. 312.
Erskine, J., says, in Walter v. Potter, Webs. Pat. Cas. 585, 607, the question 'of infringement depends upon whether the plan which the defendant has employed is in substance the same as the plaintiff's, and whether all the differences which have, been' introduced are not differences in circumstances not material, and whether it is not in substance and effect a colorable, evasion of the plaintiff's patent.
When a party has invented, some mode of carrying into effect • a law of natural science ór a rule of practice, it is the application of that law dr rule which constitutes the peculiar feature of 'the invention. He is entitled to protect himself from all other modes.of making the same application; and every question of infringement will present the question, whether the different mode, be- it better or worse, is in substance an appli- . cation of the same principle. Curtis, sect. 320.
- It is said, however, that a distinction exists in -this, — that Winslow's patent provides that the corn shall be removed from thé -cob before the process begins, and that Durand does not specify-this idea. If this be conceded, it does not alter the case. Although he may preserve Indian corn by removing it from the cob more advantageously than by letting it remain on the-'cob, he does it by using the Durand process. He still applies Durand's process of heating, puncturing, and cooling, and no more, takes the practice out of Durand's patent than if he-should specify that pears or peaches would be the better' .preserved if their outer coating should be first removed, or that meat could the better be preserved if the bones were .previously extracted. Whether the' improvement or combination could be the subject of a patent, it is not material to consider.
It is said again, that " instead of packing the kernels in the vessels selected for the purpose, in their crude state, as suggested in the English patent, the process patented by the assignor , of the plaintiff directs that the kernels should'be'cut from the cob in a way which leaves a large part of the hull oh the cob, and breaks open the kernels, liberating the juices, to use the language of the patentee, and causing the milk and other juices of the corn to flow out and surround the kernels' as they are packed in the cans, in such á mode that the juices form the liquid in which the whole is cooked, when the. cans are subjected to the bath or boiling water."
This argument is based upon an error in fact. There is no such language in the patent. The sole expression of the patent is to provide, .first, that the corn shall be removed from the cob; and, second, that it shall be subjected to heat in vessels hermeti-. cally sealed. Thus Winslow recites that difficulty had been encountered by him in preserving the corn upon'the cob. This produced ah insipid article; and accordingly he says, " My first success was obtained by the following process: The kernels, being removed from the cob, were immediately packed in cans and hermetically sealed, so as to prevent the escape of the aroma, and submitted to heat," &c. There is not a word in the patent to the effect that the kernels shall be cut off in a particular, way, or that a large part of. the hull shall be left oh the cob, nor, indeed, that the kernels shall be cut off at all. It is simply provided that the corn shall be removed from the cob. The means are not specified.
Farther on, the patentee, Winslow, says, "I recommend the following method." This is not of the substance of the patent. A recommendation is quite different from a requirement; The latter is a demand, an essential, a necessity. The former is a choice or preference between different modes or subjects, and is left to the pleasure or the judgment of the operator. ' He may adopt it. He will do well if he does... But he may reject it, and still accomplish his object by means of the patent.
The principle is this: The omission to mention in the specification something which contributes only to the degree of benefit, providing the apparatus would work beneficially and ' be worth adopting without it, is- not fatal, while the omission of what is known to be necessary to tbe enjoyment of tbe invention is fatal. Curtis, sect. 248.
An excess of description. does not injure the patent, unless tbe addition be fraudulent. Id. sect. 250.
. Accordingly, when tbe inventor says, " I recommend tbe following method," be does not thereby constitute such method a portion of bis patent.' His patent may be infringed, although tbe party does not follow bis recommendation, but accomplishes the same end by another method.
But tbe patentee does not even recommend that tbe kernels shall be cut off in such manner that a large portion of tbe bull shall remain upon tbe cob, nor does be distinctly recommend tbe cutting off of tbe kernels in any manner. His recommendation is simply that tbe kernels be removed by any convenient and suitable method. His language is, " I recommend tbe following method: Select a superior quality of sweet corn in tbe green state, and remove tbe kernels from tbe cob by means of a curved and gauged knife or other suitable means." Any means that are suitable for removing tbe kernels, whether by knife or any other method, are within this language.
That tbe simple removal of tbe corn from the cob, before it is subjected to beat, without reference to cutting it off in such manner as to leave a portion of tbe bull on tbe cob, or without reference to cutting at all, is tbe claim of Winslow's patent, is clearly shown by another consideration.
. Tbe first patent of Winslow and bis second patent, as stated in the opinion of tbe court below, are intended to effect tbe same purposes; tbe one being a patent for the article, tbe other for tbe process by which tbe article is produced. " Both patents (it is there said) may be considered together, as all tbe proofs applicable to one apply equally to tbe other; and tbe positions taken in argument are tbe- same in both, without an exception."
Now, it is quite significant of tbe intent of tbe claimant, and of tbe meaning of tbe first patent, that bis second patent, which is for tbe process, and would properly be' more specific as to every essential mode, makés no claim that. tbe com shall be removed from the cob by cutting, much less that it should be cut in any particular manner, or with a view to any particular effect. After describing bis disappointment in the result when he merely cooked the corn, and in attempting to preserve it when packed, without removal from the cob, or where it was removed after having been boiled on the cob^he says, "FinallyI adopted the process of removing the corn from the cob, packing the kernels in cans, hermetically sealing the same, then boiling the cans, until the corn contained therein became completely,cooked." The word "cutting" is not to be found in this patent. Remov.al from the cob before commencing the preservation, without reference to the manner or means,.except only that they should be suitable, is the plain intent of both patents. In this respect they are identical with each other, and are not inconsistent with Du-rand's patent.
The discovery in question has been of immense benefit to mankind. By means of food preserved in a compact and nutritious form, protected from its natural tendency to decay, deserts are traversed, seas navigated, distant regions explored.' It is less brilliant, but more useful, than all the inventions for the destruction of the human race that have ev^r, been known. It is to France that the honor of this discovery belongs, and to Appert, a French citizen. It does not belong to America or to Winslow. Appert's process presents all that we now know upon the subject. It contains absolutely every thing of value that is contained in Winslow's patent.
Other grave questions are presented by the record before us. We are satisfied, however, to place our decision upon the ground that the want of novelty in the patents of Winslow is fatal to the plaintiff's right of recovery. We do not discuss the other questions.
The decree must be reversed, and a decree ordered in favor of . the defendant below.