Novelty

9 The quality in an invention of being "new:" this pertaining to the general relations of the invention to the existing state of the art.

See New, 1.

Want of novelty will defeat an application for a patent, invalidate a patent already issued, and defeat an action for an infringement. When a machine is new and its product or manufacture old, the machine is patentable. When the machine is substantially old and the product new, the product is patentable. When both are new, both are patehtable. And so of processes and their results. Patentability may exist as to either, neither, or both, according to the fact of novelty or the opposite. ■* It is not sufficient that the thing is new and useful; and the author must find it out by mental labor and ■ 4 Bl. Com. 391. ' Sheaffer v. Eakman, 56 Pa. 163 (1867), Strong, J. = Bslin V. District of Columbia, 23 Ct. 01. 162 (lgS7). * L. novatio: novus, new. * [Guichard ti. Brande, 57 Wis. 636 (1883), Cole, 0. J. » Clark V. Billings, 59 Ind. 509 (1877), Biddle, C. J.; 64 id. 413. ' Adams V. Power, 48 Miss. 454 (1873). s Mowry v. Todd, 12 Mass. '•284 (1815), Parker, C. J.; Derby v. Sanford, 9 Cush. 264 (1852); 8 Paige, Ch. 238; 9 Baxt. 10. "L. novellitas^ newness: novus, new. intellectual creation. If the result of accident, it must be what would not occur to all persons skilled in the art, who wished to produce the same result. There must be some addition to the common stock of knowledge, not merely the first use of what was known before. ' A new combination, if it produces new and useful results, is patentable, though all the constituents were well known and in common use before the combination was made. But the results must be a product of the combination, not a mere aggregate of several results, each the complete product of one of the combined elements. Combined results are not necessarily a novel result, nor are they an" old result by a new and improved manner. Merely bringing old devices into juxtaposition, and allowing each to work out its own effect, without the production of something novel, is not invention.' The combination must produce a different force or effect, or result in the combined forces or processes, from that given by the separate parts. There must be a new result produced by their union; if not so, it Is only an aggregation of separate elements. Thus, sulphur, mixed with India-rubber, produces vulcanized rubber — a new article. The action of a stem-winding watch is another instance. In each case the result comes from the combined effect of the several parts, not from the separate action of each part. The required result does not follow from attaching a piece of rubber to a lead-pencil. ^ The combination must form either a new machine of a distinct character and function, or produce a result due to the joint and co-operating action of all the elements, and which is not the mere adding together of separate combiiiations. Otherwise, it is a mechanical juxtaposition, not a vital union.' The design of the patent laws is to reward those who make some substantial discovery or invention, which adds to our knowledge and makes a step in advance in the useful arts, not to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures. Such an indiscriminate creation of ■exclusive privileges would tend to obstruct rather than stimulate invention.^ The application of an old process or machine to a similar or analogous subject, with no change in the manner of application, and no result substantially distinct in its nature, will not sustain a patent, even if the new form of result has not before been contemplated.' See further Combination, 1; Patent, 2. » Earle v. lawyer, 4 Mas. 5 (1825), Story, J. 2 Hailes v. Van Wormer, 20 Wall. 368 (1873), Strong, J. = Eeckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U. S. 357-58 (1876), Hunt, Justice.' * Pickering v. Mc Cullough, 104 U. S. 318 (1881), Matthews, J. » Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U. S. 201 (1882), Bradley, J.; Phillips V. Detroit, 111 id. 608 (1884); 17 F. E. 630.