Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/54

m'closkey z). du bois. 39 �of that made by any of the modes before in use, and that it was also furniehed at a less priee." �Still the court said, through Mr. Justice McLean : A patent for leaden pipes would not be good, as it would be for an effect, and would consequently prbliibit all other persons froin using the saii^e grticle, however manufactur«d. Leaden pipes, are the same, the metal, belpg in no respect diiierent. Any difference in form and strength miist arise from the mode of manufacturing the pipes. The new property in the metal claimed to have been discovered by the patentees belongs to the process of manufau- ture, and not, the thing made. , i • . �And in Collar Oo.'r. Van Dusen, 23 Wall. 630, Mr. Justice Clifford said: �Articles of manufacture may be new in the commercial sense when they are not in the sense of the patent law. New articles of commerce are not patentable as new manufactures unless it appeairs in the given case that the production of the nfew article involved the exercise of invention or discovery beyond what was liecessary to construct the apparatus for its manufacture or production. �The jJlaintiff did not disoover thfet soft metal could be wrought through diesi'nor-that the quality of -wrought soft metalis generally superior to that whieh is inerely cast'i anddoes not preteiid that he did; and his patent is not for any Suoh discovery, nor for the appli- cation of it. He constructed' a machine by which crooked pipe could be made of soft meta! the same as straight pipe had before been made, a/aa the crookedpipe could be eut off so as to constitute'traps. His patent is fdr the traps made in that way — for the effect merely of that machine. He bas not the discovery. of any principle, even such as the minority of the court in Le Roy v. Tatham thought Tatham had to support his patent, in the working of soft metal. �This newly-offered : evidence of the differences in quality between the drawn trapS' and ioasti traps shows merely the diiierences be- tween drawn pipe and cast pipe or wtought lead and cast lead, and could not affect the decision of the case at all in the view taken of it by the court. If this construction of the patent and view of the case are wrong they can be oorrected by appeal. �The motioii must be denied. ��� �