in the specification. O'Reilly v. Morse, (1853) 15 How. (U. S.) 62; Hogg v. Emerson, (1848) 6 How. (U. S.) 437; Evans v. Eaton, (1816) Pet. (C. C.) 322, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,559.

The drawings constitute a part of the patent. Emerson v. Hogg, (1845) 2 Blatchf. (U. S.) 1; Washburn v. Gould, (1844) 3 Story (U. S.) 122.

A patent may be amended by application to the patent office and the granting of the certificate, for the purpose of curing merc clerical errors or defects. Woodworth v. Hall, (1846) 1 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 389, 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 517, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,017.

Rights of public. All that the patent law requires is that when a patent expires the invention covered by that patent shall be free to every one, and not that the public has the right to the use of any other invention the patent for which has not expired, and which adds to the utility and advantage of the instrument made as the result of the combined inventions. U. S. v. American Bell Telephone Co., (1897) 167 U. S. 224, affirming (C. C. A. 1895) 68 Fed. Rep. 542.

Construction of patent. - The proper construction to be given to the patent, must be determined by the court, with due regard to the various provisions of the patent law, the principles thereof, as interpreted by the courts, and by ascertaining the true meaning of the language used in the specifications and claims the patent. Brush Electric Co. v. Electric Imp. Co., (1892) 52 Fed. Rep.

965.

Liberal construction. - Patents should be "construed liberally, in accordance with the design of the Constitution and the patent laws of the United States, to promote the progress of the useful arts, and allow inventors to retain to their own use, not anything which is matter of common right, but what they themselves have created." Winans v. Denmead, (1853) 15 How. (U. S.) 341;

Brush Electric Co. v. Electric Imp. Co., (1892) 52 Fed. Rep. 965.

Pioneer patent. A pioneer inventor is entitled to a broad and liberal interpretation of his patent. McCormick v. Talcott, (1857) 20 How. (U. S.) 402; Hammerschlag r Seamoni, (1881) 7 Fed. Rep. 593; American Bell Telephone Co. v. Spencer, (1881) 8 Fed. Rep. 511; Standard Measuring Mach. Co. r. Teague, (1883) 15 Fed. Rep. 390; Worswick Mfg. Co. v. Buffalo, (1884) 20 Fed. Rep. 127: Hammerschlag Mfg. Co. v. Bancroft, (1887 32 Fed. Rep. 587; Morley Sewing Mach. Co. v. Lancaster, (1889) 129 U. S. 273; Norton v. Jensen, (1892) 49 Fed. Rep. 859; Brush Electric Co. v. Electric Imp. Co., (1892) 52 Fed. Rep. 965; Pittsburgh Reduction Co. r. Cowles Electric Smelting, etc., Co., (1893) 55 Fed. Rep. 301; Sessions v. Romadka, (1892) 145 Ü. S. 29.

Construction claimed by patentee. - The court should proceed in a liberal spirit so as to sustain the patent and the construction claimed by the patentee himself, if this can be done consistently with the language he has employed. Bradley v. Dull, (1884) 19 Fed. Rep. 913.

Construction to sustain grant.—That interpretation which sustains and vitalizes the grant of a patent should be preferred to that which strikes down and paralyzes it. National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. r. Interchangeable Brake-Beam Co., (C. C. A. 1901) 106 Fed. Rep. 693.

Courts should not be astute to avoid inventions. Davoll v. Brown, (1845) 1 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 53; Brush Electric Co. r. Electric Imp. Co., (1892) 52 Fed. Rep. 965.

"Mere rigid technicalities are to be set aside unless there is a clear, legal necessity for sustaining them." Hamilton r. Ives. (1873) 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 253; Brush Electric Co. v. Electric Imp. Co., (1892) 52 Fed. Rep. 965.

have been dated as of the date of filing the specification unless an interval exceeding six months intervened between specification and issue. Burdett v. Estey, (1880) 19 Blatchf (U. S.) 1.

Determination of priority. If two pat ents are issued at different dates to the same patentee priority will be determined by the date of application. Washburn, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Wiler, 143 U. S. 293.

Date of corrected patent. - If the patent is corrected to supply an essential element which had been omitted, the date of the patent will be the date of such correction. Marsh v. Nichols. (1888) 128 U. S. 605.

If the patent was not accompanied by the application, the date of the patent would be deemed to be the date of the invention. Eagleton Mfg. Co. v. West, etc., Mfg. Co. (1880) 2 Fed. Rep. 774.

inal inventor, and the fact that the original inventor consents to or connives in the issuance of a patent to another is immaterial. Kennedy v. Hazelton, (1888) 128 U. S. 667; Hartshorn v. Saginaw Barrel Co., (1887) 119 U. S. 664; Consolidated Roller-Mill Co. v. Coombs, (1889) 39 Fed. Rep. 25.

Necessity of discovery.. A person to be entitled to a patent must have invented or discovered some new or useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or some new and useful improvement thereof, and "it is not enough that a thing shall be new in the sense that in the shape or form in which it is produced it shall not have been before known and that it shall be useful, but it must, under the Constitution and the statute, amount to an invention or discovery." Thompson v. Boisselier, (1885) 114 U. S. 1; Stephenson v. Brooklyn Cross-Town R. Co., (1885) 114 U. S. 149; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Greenleaf, (1885) 117 U. S. 554; Gardner v. Herz, (1886) 118 U. S. 180; Pomace Holder Co. v. Ferguson, (1886) 119 U. S. 335; Hendy r. Golden State, etc., Iron Works, (1888) 127 U. S. 370; Holland v. Shipley, (1888) 127 U. S. 396; Pattee Plow Co. v. Kingman, (1889) 129 U. S. 294; Brown v. District of Columbia, (1889) 130 U. S. 87; Day v. Fair Haven, etc., R. Co., (1889) 132 U. S. 98; Hill v. Wooster, (1890) 132 U. S. 693; Watson v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., (1889) 132 U. S. 161; Marchand v. Emken, (1889) 132 U. S. 195; Royer v. Roth, (1889) 132 U S. 201.

The first inventor is the one first adapting and perfecting the invention and rendering it capable of useful operation. St. Paul Plow Works v. Starling, (1891) 140 U. S. 184; Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins, (1881) 105 U. S. 580; Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Co., (1877) 97 U. S. 126; Seymour 1. Osborne, (1871) 11 Wall. (U. S.) 552; Whitely v. Swayne, (1868) 7 Wall. (U. S.) 685; Agawam Woollen Co. v. Jordan, (1868) 7 Wall. (U. S.) 583; Fruit-Cleaning Co. v. Fresno Home-Packing Co., (1899) 94 Fed. Rep. 845; Ligowski Clay-Pigeon Co. V. American Clay-Bird Co., (1888) 34 Fed. Rep. 328; International Tooth Crown Co. v. Richmond, (1887) 30 Fed. Rep. 775; Bader v. Vajen, (1899) 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 241; Tracy v. Leslie, (1899) 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 126; Croskey v. Atterbury, (1896) 9 App. Cas. (D. C.) 207.

The man who first reduces an invention to practice is prima facie the first and true inventor, but the man who first conceives and in a mental sense first invents a machine, art, or composition of matter may date his patentable invention back to the time of its conception if he connects the conception with its reduction to practice by reasonable diligence on his part, so that they are substantially one continuous act. Christie v. Seybold, (C. C. A. 1893) 55 Fed. Rep. 69; Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Stimpson, (1840) 14 Pet. (U. S.) 448; Reed v. Cutter, (1841) 1 Story (U. S.) 590, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,645; McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Minneapolis Harvester Works, (1890) 42 Fed. Rep. 152; Standard Cartridge Co. v. Peters Cartridge Co., (C. C. A. 1896) 77 Fed. Rep. 630.

For cases on this principle see also title Patents, Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (21) ed.), vol. 22, p. 346.

"The conception of an invention consists in the complete performance of the mental part of the inventive act. It is the formation in the mind of the inventor of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention as it is thereafter to be applied in practice. If anything remains to be created or devised in order to enable the machine or instrument to perform its functions in the manner proposed by the inventor, his conception of the invention is not finished, nor has he brought into existence any true idea of the means." Wheaton v. Kendall, (1898) 85 Fed. Rep. 666.

The mere existence of an intellectual notion that a certain thing could be done, and if done might be of practical utility, does not furnish a basis for a patent or estop others from developing practically the same idea. Agawam Woollen Co. v. Jordan,(1868) 7 Wall. (U. S.) 583; Christie v. Seybold, (C. C. A. 1893) 55 Fed. Rep. 69; Standard Cartridge Co. v. Peters Cartridge Co., (C. C. A. 1896) 77 Fed. Rep. 630; Pennsylvania Diamond Drill Co. v. Simpson, (1886) 29 Fed. Rep. 288.

If ineffectual efforts were made to give the idea form, through drawings, models, or machines, but were abandoned before reaching such a stage of completion as to require only ordinary mechanical skill to carry the conception to success, the claim of priority of invention could not be sustained against a later independent conception carried into practical form at an earlier date. Reed r. Cutter, (1841) 1 Story (U. S.) 590, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,645; Standard Cartridge Co. v. Peters Cartridge Co., (1896) 77 Fed. Rep. 630.

In contemplation of law an invention does not exist until the inventor's theories and ideas have been reduced to practical form. It cannot be predicated of mere speculation and conjecture; it must be based upon something ascertained, something definite and certain. Westinghouse Electric, etc., Co. v. Saranac Lake Electric Light Co., (1901) 108 Fed. Rep. 221.

Date of invention. The acts done in the perfecting of the idea cannot be regarded as establishing the date of the invention. Webb v. Quintard, (1872) 9 Blatchf. (U. S.) 352, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,324.

Reduction to practice of process. Actual reduction to practice where the invention is a process consists in the actual performance of the process. Making a device by means of which the process can be carried out is not such a performance and is therefore not a reduction to practice. Croskey v. Atterbury, (1896) 9 App. Cas. (D. C.) 207.

Allowable application as reduction to practice. Where the inventor files an allowable application for a patent it is sufficient to constitute a reduction to practice. Telephone Cases, (1887) 126 U. S. 535; Lorraine r. Thurmond, 51 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1781; McCormick v. Cleal, (1898) 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 335; Croskey v. Atterbury, (1896) 9 App. Cas. (D. C.) 207; Porter v. Louden, (1895) 7 App. Cas. (D. C.) 64.

Drawings and models as reduction to practice. But the preparation and construction or drawings or models is not such reduction to practice. Stainthorp v. Humiston, (1864) 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 107, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,281; Hunter v. Stikeman, (1898) 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 214; McCormick v. Cleal, (1898) 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 335; Croskey v. Atterbury, (1896) 9 App. Cas. (D. C.) 212; Porter v. Louden, (1895) 7 App. Cas. (D. C.) 64; Mason t. Hepburn, (1898) 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 86. Desired result obtained before application. - Where by a following of the specifications the desired result will be produced by the described process it is not necessary that the inventor should have actually obtained the desired result before his application for a patent. Telephone Cases, (1887) 126 U. S. 535; Wheeler v. Clipper Mower, etc., Co., (1872) 10 Blatchf. (U. S.) 181; Mason v. Hepburn, (1898) 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 86; Porter v. Louden, (1895) 7 App. Cas. (D. C.)

72.

Construction of device. It is not necessary that the device should be constructed in order to enable an inventor to obtain a patent. Wheeler v. Clipper Mower, etc., Co., (1872) 10 Blatchf. (U. S.) 181; McCormick v. Cleal, (1898) 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 339. Successful test unnecessary. - It is not necessary that a device or process be successfully tested in order to obtain a patent. Hall v. Macneale, (1882) 107 U. S. 97.

-

A practical test of a combination which did not fall within the specific combination which alone was patentable, is not a reduction to practice of the combination. Tracy v. Leslie, (1899) 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 126.

Perfection to highest degree. - An inventor need not perfect his art or device to the highest degree to entitle him to a patent. It is sufficient if some practical way of putting the device into operation is pointed out. Telephone Cases, (1887) 126 U. S. 536; Miller v. Foree, (1885) 116 U. S. 22; Westinghouse v. Boyden Power-Brake Co., (1895) 66 Fed. Rep. 997; Rogers Typograph Co. v. Mergenthaler Linotype Co., (C. C. A. 1894) 64 Fed. Rep. 799.

Where there are rival inventors, the one who first conceives the idea is entitled to a patent if he uses reasonable diligence to perfect the invention and adapt it to use, and in reality does so adapt it, although he may not be the first to reduce the invention

to actual use. Whitney v. Emmett, (1831) Baldw. (U. S.) 303, 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 567; Hubel v. Dick, (1887) 24 Blatchf. (U. S.) 139; National Filtering Oil Co. v. Arctic Oil Co., (1871) 8 Blatchf. (U. S.) 416; Ellithorp v. Robertson, (1859) 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 307; Foote v. Silsby, (1851) 2 Blatchf. (U. S.) 260; Parkhurst v. Kinsman, (1849) 1 Blatchf. (U. S.) 488; Cox v. Griggs, (1861) 1 Biss. (U. S.) 362; White v. Allen, (1863) 2 Cliff. (U. S.) 224; Cahoon v. Ring, (1861) 1 Cliff. (U. S.) 612; Reed v. Cutter, (1841) 1 Story (U. S.) 590; Washburn v. Gould, (1844) 3 Story (U. S.) 122; O'Reilly v. Morse, (1853) 15 How. (U. S.) 62; Coffin v. Ogden, (1874) 18 Wall. (U. S.) 120; Seymour v. Osborne, (1871) 11 Wall. (U. S.) 516; Whitely v.

v.

Swayne, (1868) 7 Wall. (U. S.) 685; Agawam Woollen Co. v. Jordan, (1868) 7 Wall. (U. S.) 583; Telephone Cases, (1888) 126 U. S. 1; Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins, (1881) 105 U. S. 580; Standard Cartridge Co. v. Peters Cartridge Co., (C. C. A. 1896) 77 Fed. Rep. €30; Christie v. Seybold, (C. C. A. 1893) 55 Fed. Rep. 69; Peoria Target Co. v. Cleveland Target Co., (1891) 47 Fed. Rep. 728; Eagle Mfg. Co. v. Miller, (1890) 41 Fed. Rep. 351; Consolidated Bunging Apparatus Co. Woerle, (1887) 29 Fed. Rep. 449; Winans v. New York, etc., R. Co., (1855) 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,864; Smith v. Prior, (1873) 2 Sawy. (U. S.) 461, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,095; Reeves v. Keystone Bridge Co., (1872) 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 456, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,660; Reed v. Cutter, (1841) 1 Story (U. S.) 590, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,645; Ransom v. New York, (1856) 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 252, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,573; Stearns v. Davis, (1859) MacA. Pat. Cas. 696, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,338; White v. Allen, (1863) 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 440, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,535; Phelps v. Brown, (1859) 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 362, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,072; Mix v. Perkins, (1859) 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,677; Marshall v. Mee, (1853) MacA. Pat. Cas. 229, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,129; Hicks v. Shaver, (1861) 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,462; Heath v. Hildreth, (1841) MacA. Pat. Cas. 12, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,309; Davidson v. Lewis, (1858) MacA. Pat. Cas. 599, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,606; Chandler v. Ladd, (1859) MacA. Pat. Cas. 493, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,593; Bartholomew v. Sawyer, (1859) 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 347, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 1,070; New England Screw Co. v. Sloan, (1853) MacA. Pat. Cas. 210, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,158; Johnson v. Root, (1862) 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 291, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,409; Dietz v. Wade, (1859) 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,903; Cox v. Griggs, (1861) 1 Biss. (U. S.) 362, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,302; Burrows v. Wetherill, (1854) MacA. Pat. Cas. 315, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,208; Singer v. Walmsley, (1860) 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 558; Rich v. Lippincott, (1853) 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1; Kneeland v. Sheriff, (1880) 5 B. & A. Pat. Cas. 482; Albright v. Celluloid Harness Trimming Co., (1877) 2 B. & A. Pat. Cas. 629; Pennsylvania Diamond Drill Co. v. Simpson, (1886) 37 Pat. Off. Gaz. 218; Miller v. Pickering, (1883) 16 Fed. Rep. 540; Gates v. Benson, (1870) 3 Am. L. T. 113; Roberts v. Dickey, (1872) 4 Brows. (Pa.) 260, 1 Pat. Off. Gaz. 4; De Wallace r. Scott, (1899) 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 157; Bader v. Vajen, (1899) 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 241; Tracy v. Leslie, (1899) 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 126; Marvel v. Decker, (1898) 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 562; Croskey v. Atterbury, (1896) 9 App. Cas. (D. C.) 207.

-

Patent first obtained. - Between two inventors, one just as early as the other in his conception and equally meritorious, the one who first gets the patent is to be favored. Cox v. Griggs, (1861) 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 174; Seibert Cylinder Oil Cup Co. v. Lubricator Co., (1882) 10 Fed. Rep. 677; Eagle Mfg. Co. v. Miller, (1890) 41 Fed. Rep. 351. Delay for experiment. The right of a first inventor to a patent is not forfeited by delaying a reasonable time for experiment and to test his invention. Kendall v. Win

sor, (1858) 21 How. (U. S.) 322; McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Minneapolis Harvester Works, (1890) 42 Fed. Rep. 152.

An unreasonable delay in the perfection or adaptation of the invention or in the application for a patent will forfeit the right of priority of a first inventor. Kendall v. Winsor, (1858) 21 How. (U. S.) 322; Christie v. Seybold, (C. C. A. 1893) 55 Fed. Rep. 69; Wright v. Postel, (1890) 44 Fed. Rep. 352; Pennsylvania Diamond-Drill Co. v. Simpson, (1886) 29 Fed. Rep. 288; Jackson v. Knapp, (1900) 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 338; Christensen v. Noyes, (1899) 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 94; Griffin v. Swenson, (1899) 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 35; Marvel v. Decker, (1898) 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 562; Mason v. Hepburn, (1898) 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 86; Platt v. Shipley, (1897) 11 App. Cas. (D. C.) 576; Dodge v. Fowler, (1897) 11 App. Cas. (D. C.) 592; Arnold v. Tyler, (1897) 10 App. Cas. (D. C.) 175; Croskey v. Atterbury, (1896) App. Cas. (D. C.) 207; Porter v. Louden, (1895) 7 App. Cas. (D. C.) 64.

Public use by one of two original inventors. - If an invention is put into public use by one of two original inventors more than two years before the other files his application for a patent, the latter will not be entitled to a patent although he conceived the idea first. Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins, (1881) 105 U. S. 580.

Continued use as experiment. — The continued use of a prior process though imperfectly applied is no experiment. Miller v. Foree, (1885) 116 U. S. 22.

Priority between resident and foreign inventors. Where the question of priority is between resident and foreign inventors a foreign inventor cannot claim his invention in this country prior to the date of his foreign patent as against the resident inventor who subsequently received an American patent. Electrical Accumulator Co. v. Brush Electric Co., (C. C. A. 1892) 52 Fed. Rep. 130.

Knowledge of inventor. - One who accomplishes a result by a process which he understands but partially or not at all, has made no invention and cannot deprive another who afterwards discovers and proclaims the true principle of the operation of the rights of an inventor. German-American Filter Co. V. Erdrich, (1899) 98 Fed. Rep. 300.

In Piper v. Brown, (1870) Holmes (U. S.) 20, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,180, it was held that the inventor or discoverer of a new and useful art may have a valid patent though ignorant of the philosophical or abstract principle involved in the practice of the art.

Knowledge of utility of invention. - The fact that a first discoverer did not know the utility of his invention will not prevent his being entitled to a patent as against a later discoverer. Farley v. National Steam-Gauge Co., (1859) MacA. Pat. Cas. 618, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,648.

Suggestions from others. The fact that one who conceived the idea of an invention received suggestions from another or received aid in the construction of the invention or in its reduction to practical form is not suffi cient to deprive him of his right to a patent.

National Feather Duster Co. V. Hibbard, (1881) 11 Biss. (U. S.) 76; O'Reilly v. Morse, (1853) 15 How. (U. S.) 62; Union Paper Collar Co. v. Van Dusen, (1874) 23 Wall." (U. S.) 530; Agawam Woollen Co. v. Jordan, (1868) 7 Wall. (U. S.) 583; Corser v. Brattleboro Overall Co., (1899) 93 Fed. Rep. 807; Smith v Stewart, (1893) 55 Fed. Rep. 481; Watson v. Belfield, (1886) 26 Fed. Rep. 536; Spaulding v. Tucker, (1869) Deady (U. S.) 649, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,220; Soley v. Hebbard, (1895) 5 App. Cas. (D. C.) 99.

Aid in mechanical details. The fact that an inventor received aid in the construction of the mere mechanical details of a patent does not take away his right to the patent. Yoder v. Mills, (1885) 26 Fed. Rep. 273; Pennock v. Dialogue, (1825) 4 Wash. (U. S.) 538, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 10,941; Watson v. Bladen, (1826) 4 Wash. (U. S.) 580, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,277; Sparkman v. Higgins, (1846) 1 Blatchf. (U. S.) 205, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,208; Huebel v. Barnard, (1899) 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 510.

Conception furnished by others. - Where the conception of the invention itself is furnished to a person by others he is not entitled to a patent as he is not the original inventor. O'Reilly v. Morse, (1853) 15 How. (U. S.) 62; Union Paper-Collar Co. v. Van Dusen, (1874) 23 Wall. (U. S.) 530; Agawam Woollen Co. v. Jordan, (1868) 7 Wall. (U. S.) 583; Atlantic Works v. Brady, (1882) 107 U. S. 192; Forgie v. Oil-Well Supply Co., (C. C. A. 1893) 58 Fed. Rep. 871; Eclipse Mfg. Co. v. Adkins, (1890) 44 Fed. Rep. 280; Watson v. Belfield, (1886) 26 Fed. Rep. 536; Thomas v. Weeks, (1827) 2 Paine (U. S.) 92, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,914; Pitts v. Hall, (1851) 2 Blatchf. (U. S.) 229; 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,192; Judson v. Moore, (1859) 1 Bond (U. S.) 285, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,569; Alden v. Dewey, (1840) 1 Story (U. S.) 336, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 153; Carter v. Carter, (1855) MacA. Pat. Cas. 388, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,475.

The law intends to protect by patent only those who actually invent, and not to confer upon a claimant that which he merely adopts from the suggestion and genius of others. De Lamar v. De Lamar Min. Co., (1901) 110 Fed. Rep. 538.

Making failure success by mechanical skill. - But where a machine was a failure, the rendering it a success by one who through mere mechanical skill improves the details, does not constitute such person an inventor. Birmingham Cement Mfg. Co. v. Gates Iron Works, (C. C. A. 1896) 78 Fed. Rep. 350.

Where an employer conceives the idea of an invention and employs others to carry out his conception he is an original inventor and entitled to the patent, even though his employees exercise inventive skill in the details of the invention. Smith v. Stewart, (1893) 55 Fed. Rep. 481; Wellman v. Blood, (1856) MacA. Pat. Cas. 432, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,385; King v. Gedney, (1856) MacA. Pat. Cas. 443, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,795; Watson r. Bladen, (1826) 4 Wash. (U. S.) 580, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,277; Pennock v. Dialogue, (1825) 4 Wash. (U. S.) 538, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 10,941; Sparkman v. Higgins, (1846) 1 Blatchf. (U. S.)