Brooklyn etc. R. Co. 19 Blachf. (U. S.) 473; S. C., 14 Fed. Rep. 457.

One or two successful applications are sufficient. Miller v. Foree, 9 Fed. Rep. 603; s. c., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 947.

Insufficient Use.-If a process is practiced once as an experiment and then abandoned, it will not be an obstacle to the right of a subsequent inventor. Piper v. Brown, 1 Holmes (U. S.) 20. What is Experiment Only.—In most cases a sufficient use of the alleged prior invention must be shown to prove that it will accomplish what is claimed; otherwise it rests in the region of mere experiment. Chicago etc. R. Co. v. Sayles, 97 U. S. 554.

The party alleged to have made the prior invention, must have proceeded so far as to have entitled himself to a patent. Allen v. Hunter, 6 McLean (U.S.) 303.

Contra, Hildreth v. Heath, 1 Cranch Pat. Dec. 95.

If a person understood his invention and applied it successfully in one or two instances, it is a sufficient reduction to practice to defeat the claim of a subsequent inventor. Miller v. Foree, 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 947; s. c., 9 Fed. Rep. 603; Rich v. Lippincott, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1. If the machine was complete, capable of working and known to at least five persons, was put into use, tested and successful, it will invalidate a subsequent patent. Coffin v. Ogden, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 120.

Extent of Use Necessary.-Where the invention has been put into greater or less use, or extent of diffusion of knowledge, it is not criterion whether it invalidates a subsequent patent. Rich v. Lippincott, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1; Spring v. Packard, 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 531.

The prior machine must be perfect and capable of being used; it is not necessary that it should have been used. Parker v. Ferguson, 1 Blatchf. (U. S.) 407; Pitts v. Wemple, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 10; s. c., I Biss. (U. S.) 87.

The use of a successful invention which needed no change of mechanism, may be entirely discontinued without its ceasing to anticipate a subsequent invention. Shoup v. Henrici, 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 249; Waterman v. Thompson, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 461; McNish v. Everson, 2 Fed. Rep. 899.

Success of Use. The prior invention need not be worked with any greater skill and success than to demonstrate its usefulness. Waterman v. Thomson,

2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 461; Pitts v. Wemple, 1 Biss. (U. S.) 87; Northwestern Fire Extinguisher Co. v. Philadelphia Fire Extinguisher Co., 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 177.

Reduction into Practice Does Not Mean Necessarily Putting Into Use.-" Reduction to practice" does not necessarily mean bringing the invention into use. Heath v. Hildreth, 1 Cranch Pat. Dec. 96; Perry v. Cornell, 1 Cranch Pat. Dec. 132; Coffin v. Ogden, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 640; s. c., 7 Blatchf. (U. S.) 61.

But putting the invention into a form ready for practical use. Coffin v. Ogden, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 640; s. c., 7 Blatchf. (U. S.) 61; Heath v. Hildreth, I Cranch Pat. Dec. 96.

But it need not be carried to a point where there cannot be any subsequent improvement, and any practical utility, however small, is sufficient to show the invention completed. Johnson v. Root, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 351.

A completed invention signifies that the invention should be of some practical utility; it need not be of a high degree. Johnson v. Root, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 351.

A perfected invention is one that is brought to such a condition as to be capable of practical use. Hayden v. Suffolk Mfg. Co., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 86; affg 3 Wall. (U. S.) 315.

A written description of a machine, although illustrated by drawings, which has not been given to the public, does not constitute an invention within the meaning of the Patent Laws. Evidence that such a description was made does show, of itself, a prior invention. Such a description has not the same effect as a printed publication. It lacks the essential quality of such a publication, for even though deposited in the Patent Office, it is not designed for general circulation, nor is it made accessible to the public generally, being so deposited for the special purpose of being examined and passed upon by the Patent Office, and not that it may thereby become known to the public. Although it may incidentally become known, the deposit of it is not a publication of it within the meaning of the statutes of the law. Moreover, although the description may be so full and precise as to enable any one skilled in the art to which it appertains to construct what it describes, it does not attain the proportions or character of a complete invention until it is embodied in a form capable of useful operation.

Northwestern Fire Fxtinguisher Co. v. Philadelphia Fire Extinguisher Co., 6 Pat. Off. Gaz. 34; Lyman Ventilating etc. Co. v. Lalor, 12 Blatchf. (U. S.) 303; s. c., 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 403. 1. Where an inventor has perfected his invention and obtained patent therefor the patent cannot be invalidated by showing that crude and unsuccessful experiments were made by others previous to his invention. La Baw v. Hawkins, 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 428; Aultman v. Holley, 11 Blatchf. (U. S.) 317; s. c., 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 534; s. c., 5 Pat. Off. Gaz. 3; Albright v. Celluloid etc. Harness Trimming Co., 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 629; s. c., 12 Pat. Off. Gaz. 227; Uhlmann v. Bartholomae etc. Brewing Co., 41 Fed. Rep. 132; Ansonia Brass etc. Co. v. Electrical Supply Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 81.

An article which was made merely as a curiosity and not for the trade will not defeat a subsequent invention. Lamb v. Hamblen, 11 Fed. Rep. 722. 2. Crandal v. Watters, 20 Blatchf. (U.S.) 97; Crandal v. Parker Carriage etc. Co., 28 Pat. Off. Gaz. 369.

Process and Product.- Where an article is patented, a prior publication relied upon to anticipate it, need not describe the process by which it is made, if it describes the article. Cohn v. United States Corset Co., 93 U. S. 366.

Where alleged prior invention was shown to be very near the realization of the invention, but could not, at a period long subsequent make a machine embodying the invention, held, that it was not sufficient to defeat a patent even though witnesses testified it was successful. Dolbear v. American Bell Telephone Co., 126 U. S. 1; Taylor v. Wood, I Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 270.

Where prior inventors approach very near the discovery of patentee but do not discover the principle feature of his invention, and are not able to give any directions by which same can be successfully prepared and applied, the patent is not anticipated. Cahill v. Brown, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 580.

3. United Nickel Co. v. Anthes, I Holmes (U. S.) 155; s. c., 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 517; s. c., 1 Pat. Off. Gaz. 578; New York v. Ransom, 23 How. (U. S.) 487; Wayne v. Holmes, 1 Bond (U. S.) 27; Hubbell's Case, 5 Ct. of Cl. 1; Stickels v. Borden, 3 Blatchf. (U. S.) 535: Smith v. Allen, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 572; Many v. Jagger, 1 Blatchf. (U. S.) 372; Seymour v. McCormick, 19 How. (U. S.) 96; Smith v. Fay, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 446; Latta v. Shawk, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 465; Doughty v. Day, 9 Blatchf. (U. S.) 262; Ellithorp . Robertson, 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 307; Stainthorp v. Humiston, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 107; Ball v. Murry, 10 Pa. St. 14; Wilcox v. Komp, 7 Blatchf. (U. S.) 126.

Two Meanings of "Experiment."—An experiment may be a trial either of an incomplete mechanical structure to ascertain what changes or additions may be necessary to make it accomplish the design of its projector, or of a completed machine to test its efficiency. In the first case, abandonment having taken place, no effect is caused on subsequent invention; but if the experiment, in second case, shows the capacity of machine to effect the inventor's object, he has the merit of producing complete invention. Northwestern Fire Extinguisher Co. v. Philadelphia Fire Extinguisher Co., 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 177.

What Amounts to an Abandoned Experiment.- Where an inventor for some reason breaks up his invention, and while not wholly intending to abandon it, yet uncertain whether he will resume the subject, it shows not an unconditional abandoment but an entire un

certainty during the suspension, whether or not the invention will be given to the public, there being no application for a patent; another, who invents the same thing, perfects it, reduces it to practice, patents and consigns it to public use will be regarded as the first inventor. White v. Allen, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 440; s. c., 2 Cliff. (U. S.) 224; Gallahue v. Butterfield, 10 Blatchf. (U. S.) 232; s. c., 6 Fish. Pat.

Cas. 203; s. c.,.2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 645; Adams etc. Mfg. Co. v. Rathbone, 26 Fed. Rep. 262; Hutchinson v. Everett, 26 Fed. Rep. 531.

A man made and tested several devices, but after testing them, took them to pieces and laid them away. Held, an abandoned experiment. Fay v. Allen, 24 Fed. Rep. So4.

Extreme Case.-Half a dozen articles were made and the manufacture was abandoned. Held, their manufacture was an abandoned experiment. Hicks v. Otto, 29 Pat. Off. Gaz. 365; s. c., 19 Fed. Rep. 749.

Abandoned Experiment. If an alleged prior invention was only an abandoned experiment, never perfected, it cannot affect a subsequent patent. Corn Planter Patent, Brown v. Guild, 23 Wall. (U. S.) 161; Adams v. Jones, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 527; Gottfried v. Phillip Best Brewing Co., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 4; Woodward v. Dinsmore, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 163; United Nickel Co. v. Authes, 1 Holmes (U. S.) 135; s. c., Pat. Office Gaz. 578.

If alleged prior machine is abandoned as useless after experimental trials, presumption will be that it is not identical with subsequent invention of proved merit. Wayne v. Holmes, 1 Bond (U. S.) 27.

A single machine abandoned many years before, will not invalidate a pat

ent.

Blake v. Rawson, 1 Holmes (U. S.) 200; s. c., 3 Pat. Off. Gaz. 122; Taylor v. Wood, 12 Blatchf. (U. S.) IIO; S. C., I Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 270.

If suggestions came to the inventor from prior experiments, and he is the first who reduced these suggestions to practice, he is entitled to his invention. Roberts v. Dickey, 1 Pat. Off. Gaz. 4. 1. Parkhurst v. Kinsman, 1 Blatchf (U. S.) 488.

2. Richardson v. Noys, 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 398; s. c., 10 Pat. Off. Gaz. 507.

Where a patent has been granted for improvements which, after a full and fair trial, resulted in unsuccessfull experiments and have finally been abandoned, and another person takes up the subject of the improvements and is successful, he is entitled to the merit of them as an original inventor. Whitely v. Swayne, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 685.

Although prior unsuccessful experiments involved the same idea or principle as subsequent patent, the latter will not be invalidated. United Nickel Co. v. Authes, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 517; s. c., 1 Holmes 135; Roberts v. Dickey, 3 Brews. (Pa.) 260; American Bell Teleph. Co. v. People's Teleph. Co., 25 Fed. Rep. 725.

Model Insufficient.--The mere making a model of an invention, held not to constitute invention, as against a patent subsequently granted to another for the same thing. Stillwell etc. Mfg. Co. v. Cincinnati Gas etc. Co., 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 610.

Same rule obtains, although the model was capable of operation for the purpose of experiments. Cahoon v. Ring, i Cliff. (U. S.) 592.

Especially where the model was one filed in the Patent Office and recalled by the applicant because it did not represent his invention "truly." Decker v. Grote, 10 Blatchf. (U. Š.) 331; s. c., 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 143; s. c., 3 Pat. Off. Gaz. 65.

Use of Knowledge Obtained from an Abandoned Experiment-When It Makes Subsequent Patent Void.—If the knowledge derived from a prior abandoned experiment is sufficiently clear and defi

nite to enable an inventor to construct the improvement which is the subject of his invention, the patent is void; otherwise, where an original inventor of an improvement, though having knowledge of such an experiment, who is entitled to the benefit of all unsubstantial changes and improvements, notwithstanding such modifications may run into and include forms of mechanism shown in the abandoned experiment. Union Paper Bag etc. Co. v. P. & W. Co., 15 Blatchf. (U. S.) 160; s. c., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 403; s. c., 15 Pat. Off. Gaz. 423.

The following have been held to be experiments only: A single machine abandoned directly, and apparently impracticable. Blake v. Rawson, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 74; s. c., 3 Pat. Off. Gaz. 122; Taylor v. Wood, 12 Blatchf. (U. S.) 110; s. c., I Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 270; s. C., 8 Pat. Off. Gaz. 90; Tatum v. Gregory, 41 Fed. Rep. 142.

A device not showing an important element. Roberts v. Dicky, 4 Brews. (Pa.) 260; s. c., 20 Fish. Pat. Čas. 532;

s. c., 1 Pat. Off. Gaz. 4; Hitchcock v. Tremaine, 9 Blatchf. (Ü. S.) 550; s. c., 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 537; s. c., 1 Pat. Off. Gaz. 633.

A similar product made by a somewhat similar process, but apparently not successful and not continued. Smith v. Glendale etc. Fabric Co., 1 Holmes (U. S.) 340; s. c., 5 Pat. Off. Gaz. 429. Cases where alleged anticipating device declared experiment through the non-success of the result. Smith v. Goodyear Dental etc. Co., 93 U. S. 487; s. c., 11 Pat. Off. Gaz. 246.

1. Whitney v. Emmett, 1 Baldw. (U. S.) 303; s. c., 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 567; Rowley v. Mason, 2 A. L. T. 106; Judson v. Bradford, 3 Bann. & Ard: Pat. Cas. 539; s. c., 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 171; Sayles v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 523; s. c., I Biss. (U. S.) 468; Stainthrop v. Humiston, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 107; Piper v. Brown, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 175; Zinsser v. Kremer, 39 Fed. Rep. 111.

Especially is this the case where an invention is afterward forgotten. Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. (U. S.) 477; Hall v. Bird, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 595; s. c., 6 Blatchf. (U.S.) 438; Bullock Printing Press Co. v. Jones, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 195.

And where only a single specimen of the invention was in existence. Cahoon v. Ring, I Fish. Pat. Cas. 397.

That a device had been kept secret some time does not prevent it from being afterwards patented. Ayling v. Hall, 2 Cliff. (U. S.) 494.

2. New York v. Ransom, 23 How. (U.S.) 322.

3. Publication means put into general circulation. Cotter v. Stimson, 20 Fed. Rep. 906.

If an invention has been described in a public work anterior to the supposed discovery, the patent is void. Evans v. Eaton, 3 Wheat. (U. S.) 454; S. C., Robb Pat. Cas. 68; Winans v. Schenectady etc. R. Co., 2 Blatchf. (U. S.) 279; Evans v. Hettick, 3 Wash. (U. S.) 408.

A specification of a prior foreign patent is a prior publication. Sewall v. Jones, 91 U. S. 171.

Status of Publication.-"Under the provisions of law, if the publication in the English work preceded the discov. ery by Heaton, the defense was made out. Under the law the publication is put upon the same footing with a patent taken out at the time of the publi cation. The sole question is, therefore, did Heaton make his invention before the date of the English publication?" Webb v. Quintard, 9 Blatchf. (U. S.) 352; s. c., 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 276.

When a Printed Description Becomes a "Publication."—A printed description of an invention is not deemed published until after it has been left some time in a place accessible to the public. Coburn v. Schroeder, 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1538; s. c., 11 Fed. Rep. 425.

What Does Not Amount to a Publication.-A description of an invention contained in an application for a patent which was rejected because it lacks the essential quality of a publication, in that it is not accessible to the public generally or designed for general circulation. Northwestern Fire Extinguisher Co. v. Philadelphia Fire Extinguisher Co., I Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 177; s. c., 6 Pat. Off. Gaz. 34.

Business circulars sent only to persons engaged or supposed to be engaged in the trade. New Process Fermentation Co. v. Koch, 21 Fed. Rep. 580; Parsons v. Colgate, 15 Fed. Rep. 600.

A book, of which there was no evidence other than that furnished by the copy, that the work was ever on sale or circulation. Cottier v. Stimson, 20 Fed. Rep. 906.

A book offered as an anticipatory publication must be proved to be put in circulation or offered to the public before the patentee's invention, by other evidence than the date on the title page. Reeves v. Keystone Bridge Co., 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 458; s. c., 9 Phila. (Pa.) 368; s. c., 1 Pat. Off. Gaz. 466.

A written description of a machine, although illustrated by drawings, which has not been given to the public, does not constitute an invention within the meaning of the Patent Laws, so as to defeat a subsequent patent to an inde

pendent inventor, even though it be deposited in the Patent Office as part of an application for a patent. Lyman Ventilating etc. Co. v. Lalor, 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 403.

A mere rejected application showing that the device described was ever practically made and used, does not anticipate a patent. Barker v. Stowe, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 337

When the inventor's idea is perfected by a practical adaption of it in the form of mechanism, a rejected specification with the drawings, must be considered in connection with it, in ascertaining the date of invention, design of inventor, and the principle intended function and mode of operation of his mechanism. Northwestern Fire Extinguisher Co. v. Philadelphia Fire Extinguisher Co., 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 177.

A prior application for a patent without evidence to show that the described device was ever constructed, is not sufficient to defeat subsequent patent. Adams v. Howard, 26 Pat. Off. Gaz. 825.

An English provisional specification is not a bar to a patent, only as a printed specification describing the invention. The patent constitutes no objection. Cohn v. United States Corset Co., 12 Blatchf. (U. S.) 225.

A provisional specification which is not shown to take effect as a publication prior to the date showing the invention, does not anticipate a patent. Ireson v. Pierce, 39 Fed. Rep. 795; Smith v. Goodyear Dental etc. Co., 93 U. S. 486; s. c., 11 Pat. Off. Gaz. 246.

1. A description in a prior publication, in order to defeat a patent, must contain and exhibit a substantial representation of the patented improvement in such full, clear and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which it appertains to make, construct and practice the invention patented. It must be an account of a complete and operative invention, capable of being put into practical operation. Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 516; Cohn v. United States Corset Co., 93 U. S. 366; Electrical Accumulation Co. v. Julien Electric Co., 38 Fed. Rep. 117; Adams v. Bellaire Stamping Co., 28 Fed. Rep. 360; Downton v. Yaeger Milling Co., 108 U. S. 466.

If the thing patented is described, the

steps necessarily antecedent need not be. Cohn v. United States Corset Co., 93 U. S. 366.

"Inventions patented here cannot be superseded by the mere introduction of a foreign patent or publication, although of prior date, unless the descriptions and drawings contain and exhibit a substantial representation of the patented improvement in such full, clear and exact terms as to enable anyone skilled in the art or science to which it appertains, without resorting to experiments, to make, construct and practice the invention as he would be enabled to do from a prior patent for the same invention." Cahill v. Brown, 15 Pat. Off. Gaz. 697; s. c., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 580, citing Betts v. Menzies, 7 L. T., N. S. 110.

Where the alleged prior publication remotely suggested the device, but did not construct it so that the public could manufacture and put it to the use designed without further invention. McComb v. Ernest, 1 Woods (U. S.) 195; Howe v. Williams, 2 Cliff. (U. S.) 245; Carr v. Rice, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 198.

Scientific Speculation Insufficient.A publication showing only suggestions and speculations of scientific men who had never tested the practicability of the device. Jensen v. Keasbey, 24 Fed. Rep. 144; Hays v. Sulsor, 1 Bond (U. S.) 279; s. c., I Fish. Pat. Cas. 532.

Incompleteness and Indefiniteness Fatal.-Statements in a prior publication not full and definite enough to enable those skilled in the art to put the invention into practice. Hord v. Boston Car Spring Co., 21 Fed. Rep. 67; Cohn v. United States Corset Co., 93 U. S. 366; Downton v. Yaeger Milling Co., 108 U. S. 466.

When the published description does not give the public a practical knowledge of the invention. Roberts v. Dickey, 4 Brew. (Pa.) 260.

Where the invention cannot be made and used merely by use of the publication without the aid of anything not known. Begnall v. Harvey, 18 Blatchf (U. S.) 353; Carr v. Rice, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 198; Goff v. Stafford, 14 Pat. Off. Gaz. 748.

Burden to Show Sufficiency on Defendant.-The defendant has to make out the sufficiency of the description. Cohn v. United States Corset Co., 12 Blatchf (U. S.) 225.