Hicks v. Kelsey

having stated the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

The question is whether the mere change of material— making the curve of iron instead of wood and iron — was a sufficient change to constitute invention ; the purpose being the same, the means of accomplishing it being the same, and the form of the reach and mode of operation being the same.

It is certainly difficult to bring the case within any recognized rule of novelty by which the patent can be sustained. The use of one material instead of another in constructing a known machine is, in most cases, so obviously a matter of mere mechanical judgment, and not of invention, that it cannot be called an invention, unless sonie new and useful result, an increase of efficiency, or a decided saving in the operation, is clearly attained. Some evidence was given to show that the wagon-reach of the plaintiff’ is a better reach, requiring less repair, and having greater solidity than the wooden reach. But if is not sufficient to bring the case out of the category of more or less excellence of construction. The machine is the same. Axe-helves made of hickory may be more durable and more cheap in the end than those made of beech or pine, but the first application of hickory to the pui'pose would not be, therefore, patentable.

*674 Cases have frequently arisen in which.substantially the question now presented has been dis'cussed. Perhaps, however, none can be cited mor.e directly in point than that of Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, * in which it was held that the substitution of porcelain for metal in making door-knobs of a particular construction was not patentable, though the new material was better adapted to the purpose.and made a better and cheaper knob — having been used for door-knobs, however, before. So, in a case at the circuit, referred to by Justice Nelson in the last-named case, † the substitution of wood for bone as the basis of a button covered with tin was held not patentable.

In Crane v. Price, ‡ it is true, the use of anthracite instead of bituminous coal with the hot-blast in smelting iron ore was held to be a good invention, inasmuch as it produced a better article of iron at a less expense. But that was a process of manufacture, and in such processes a different article' replacing another article in the combination often produces different results. The latter case is more analogous to the cases of compositions of matter than it is to those of machinery',- and in compositions of matter a different ingredient changes the identity of the compound, whereas an iron bar in place of a wooden one, and subserving the same purpose, does not change the identity of a machine. §

But the plaintiff’s counsel alleges that his invention does not consist of the mere substitution of a particular material for another material which had been previously used for the same purpose in the same way, but consists in the production of a certain described article by a certain described mechanical process, which process, viewed as a whole, is new and useful; and then he describes what he supposes to be such new mechanical process. This is his argument; but the facts do not bear out such a view of the case.

In our judgment, the patent in this case is void for want of novelty in the alleged invention.

Decree affirmed.