FLAT-CHAMBERED BOILERS.-ON THE EXTENT OF MR. HANCOCK'S CLAIMS.

Sir, We feel much interest in this neighbourhood in the discussion on Hancock's and Anderson's steam boilers. If Mr. H. can claim Sir J. A.'s boiler, it appears to me that he may claim also, almost every existing boiler of a subsequent date to his patent; for there are few that do not possess some feature of similarity; but it does not follow that they are infringements, nevertheless, even if such features were suggested by the labours of another, as it would be too much to assume that what one man has effected, however intricate and profound, could not be equally accomplished by another.

Mr. Hebert asserts that he found the "real claim of Mr. Hancock was not for every kind of flat chamber;" and, a little further on, that "Mr. Hancock prudently kept the broad claim out of his specification." Mr. Hancock in reply, after much unnecessary play on the term flat, has given his claims as follows:"Mr. Hebert charges me with an attempt to impose upon your readers: the accusation recoils on himself. The words of my claim are, the constructing narrow flat vessels in the form and manner hereinbefore described, and which are adapted to be placed vertically edgewise upwards over the fire for producing steam for steam-engines; and also in arranging and combining a series of such vessels together with narrow vertical spaces between them for the fire, so as to form a boiler with communications through their junctions for the passage of water and steam from one vessel to another."

Nothing, certainly, can be more clearly and concisely defined than are these claims, and they corroborate most completely Mr. Hebert's assertion, that Mr. Hancock is limited to the particular construction of the vessels "therein described;" and also to the one particular mode of combining a series of such vessels. They demonstrate most decidedly that Mr. Hancock did not, on the occasion, contemplate the possibility of any variation or modification of form, or mode of connection, otherwise such contingency would have been provided for.

The law of patent right does not grant a monopoly of a principle, and in the case of steam boilers, it can only

give protection to the patentee of a particular conformation, mode of construction, or combination; and to these means, which are specified and described by him to be essential or conducive to the exercise of his invention, is the patentee rigidly confined to quote from an author, "He must not be allowed to bring within the meshes of his monopoly contrivances which he has not made, and which are already perhaps, or may chance, in ordinary course, to come from other sources to common property."

Mr. Hancock's invention consists of flat chambers, each of which is complete in itself; and is not his boiler formed by combining a series of such chambers together through the medium of two bolts, round which, by means of collars, or some such arrangement, a water and steam communication is formed throughout the series?

Now, how does Sir J. A.'s invention accord with this? His boiler is composed of a bottom and top chamber, connected together by partitions of alternating water and flue spaces; these spaces are not chambers, properly speaking, they only form a part of a whole, solidly riveted together. None of these spaces before riveting are complete in themselves, like Mr. Hancock's chambers, they having one side wholly open, and the other partially; therefore, until they are riveted to the body, they cannot, like Mr. Hancock's chambers, be used individually for the purpose of generating steam. Further, if Sir J. A.'s boiler were laid on its side, an horizontal section of the spaces would present a fac-simile of the flue and water spaces of a marine boiler; that the flue of such boiler is much wider in proportion than the water spaces, is most true, but we cannot patent the width of a flue, nor that of a water space.

He must be a bold man, and no mechanic, who will say that the conformation of these inventions are the same, or that they bear a greater similitude to each other than boilers generally do, or indeed than is justifiable. So much, then, for the " appropriation of the la

bour of others."

I had written thus far, when I received the last number of the Magazine, wherein you review Mr. Hancock's Narrative, and in the course of your editorial remarks you observe, (page

388), "That the originality of this chamber boiler, and the extent of Mr. H.'s claim of monopoly, whether it extends to all kinds of flat chambers in which fire, or rather hot air and flame, and water, are in alternate layers; or whether it is confined to the particular method of construction specified by Mr. H., has been lately the subject of discussion in our Magazine. We incline to the former opinion. If Mr. H. can show himself to be the original inventor and patentee of flat chamber boilers, notwithstanding he has only described ONE method of making them in his specification, (which is as per example) the law as at present interpreted, will protect him from all mere colourable modifications, even although they may be improvements, and the patentee of such improvements or modifications can only work them under license froin Mr. Hancock, until the term of his patent is expired." If this new reading of the patent laws be correct; if Mr. Hancock's right extends to all flat chambers, whatever may be the form of construction, in which fire, or rather hot air and flame, and water, are in alternate layers, to which "your opinion inclines," notwithstanding it is not so specified, patentees must use their most strenuous exertions to oppose an extension of the term of an expiring patent; and which extension cannot evidently be granted, without manifest injustice to those whose patents this new interpretation thus makes dependent. But what if the public should object to Mr. Hancock's claim, and reply in something like these terms-"We, the public, have for a long period previous to the existence of your patent, Mr. Hancock, been in the habit of using boilers in which water and heated air are ranged in alternate layers, as shown in marine boilers above noticed. But you seek by this new doctrine to deprive us of that which has already become public property, for it must extend to all."

Would not Mr. H. naturally reply, "I do not claim the monopoly of generating steam by hot air and water in alternate layers, I claim only the particular mode of construction set forth in my specification, thus disposing at once of his high pretensions, and allowing poor Sir J. Anderson to continue the even tenor of his way.

The recent amendment of the patent laws has removed several of the unjust restrictions to which patentees were subject; but I do conceive that, if the opinion you have expressed were law, patentees would labour under difficulties a thousand times greater than before, and which would sap patent property to its very foundation. As if a patentee is to travel beyond the record-if he is to be allowed to bring within the meshes of his monopoly contrivances which he never made or contemplated, and provided not for in his specification, and a simple description of the invention, as per example, is to suffice, it is tantamount to obtaining the monopoly of a first principle; hence we should have, as has been well observed, but one patent spinning machine, one patent loom, one patent steam-engine, and so onthus the patent would be granted for the end, not for the means, and which would be destructive to ninety nine patents out of a hundred in existence, and therefore the question as to limit is one of the gravest import to patentees ever mooted.

MR. HANCOCK'S AND SIR JAMES ANDERSON'S PATENT BOILERS.

Sir,-I quite agree with your remarks in No. 784 of your Magazine, that it is not the proper place to discuss the legal rights of patentees. It would have been much better if Mr. Hancock had refrained from making any attack on Sir James Anderson's patent right until he brought it before a court of law; but as you did (I have no doubt from the best. and most liberal motives) insert the attack, which from the immense circulation of your Magazine had such a powerful tendency to prejudice the interest of Sir James; and as you have allowed Mr. Hancock in his last letter to reiterate the statement, I hope you will also allow me a short reply. In No. 783 of your Magazine, I stated, that Mr. Hancock had no legal right to restrain any person from adopting flat chambers for boilers, nor for the modes of strengthening or arranging them in any way

they thought proper; and I stated my reasons for such opinion in No. 783, and 784, and as I had legal statements on the subject I still retain the same opinion, notwithstanding your kind remarks on behalf of Mr. Hancock. I omitted, however, to state, that although acts of commission or omission existed which would invalidate his patent, yet it required a wrt of scire facias to issue actually to annul them; which course could be adopted by any parties who might be interfered with. Thus far in explanation I conceive requisite by your notes appended to my two letters. Mr. Hancock now having published his claim in No. 786, and having thus made known to the world, that his patent (if good and valid) is only for constructing narrow flat vessels in the form and manner described in his specification, and that he also claims for his mode of arranging and combining a series of such vessels together, with narrow vertical spaces between them for the fire, so as to form one boiler, with communication through their junctions for the passage of water from one vessel to another; having done this, it is clear from his own statement, that his claim is only for a boiler whose chambers or vessels are of the form and manner described in his specification, and for the method of combining and arranging such chambers; so that, according to his own showing, any person may make a different form of chambers, and may combine and arrange such different form in any way they please, without in the least entrenching on his claim. I trust, Mr. Editor, you will now allow me to show that Sir James Anderson's boiler is so essentially different in all its parts and arrangements from such described patent, that no similarity can be found to exist. In the first place, Sir James's chambers are flat parallel chambers;-Mr. Hancock's are near double the size at each end that they are in the middle. Mr. Hancock strengthens his chambers by a series of bolts passed through them at various places, the plates being bulged inwards to admit of the heads of such bolts being brought below the surface;-Sir James strengthens his by peculiarly constructed frames inside, to which the perfectly flat plates are rivetted. Mr. Hancock has a number of vertical flues (by his arrangement of his chambers) for the fire and smoke

to pass through ;-Sir James's chambers are arranged to form only one continuous flue. Mr. Hancock's arrangement only admits of the water occupying a portion of his chambers,-Sir James's chambers must be at all times full of water. The upper part of Mr. Hancock's chambers are his reservoirs for steam;-Sir James's has a separate chamber for that purpose at the top of his boiler. Mr. Hancock has a clear and nearly direct passage to the atmosphere for his fire and smoke; while Sir James's has a flat water chamber over the whole of his and connected with them. Mr. Hancock's fire-place is underneath his chambers;-Sir James's is at one end. Sir James relies for keeping all his joints steam-tight by having all iron or copper joints ;-Mr. Hancock invariably in his specification says, he uses and recommends lead tin foil and soft solder for all his joints. Mr. Hancock connects the water and steam in each of his chambers with the others by means of two or more hollow bolts, which pass through the whole of the chambers;-Sir James has no such bolts, nor any connection through his chambers. Having now shown that Sir James Anderson's boiler is in no respect constructed or arranged so as to incroach on Mr. Hancock's claims as shown by himself, I remain, Mr. Editor, with many thanks for your impartial conduct. Your obedient servant,

A SHAREHOLDER IN THE STEAM CARRIAGE AND WAGGON COMPANY.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE LAW OF PATENTS, AS REGARDS THE EXTENT OF AN INVENTOR'S CLAIMS OF MONOPOLY-MR. HANCOCK'S AND SIR JAMES ANDERSON'S PATENT BOIL

ERS.

In inserting the two preceeding letters we have swerved from our intention not to admit of a discussion of the legal rights of patentees in our pages; but the temporary interest excited as regards the parties whose patents are in question, and the importance of the general point at issue, must be our excuse. We hope, however, that our correspondents will not strain the character of impartiality which they are pleased to give us, by entering further into the discussion. The opinions after expressed are the result of

considerable experience in patent matters, and mature consideration of the existing law upon the subject.

In supporting the validity of Mr. Hancock's patent we rest upon the hypothe sis that he is the original inventor and patentee of flat-chambered boilers, as we shall hereafter more particularly define, leaving out of sight the common marine boilers, referred to by Mr. Simmons, and Smith's patents, referred to by Mr. Hebert, the bringing forward of which is a mere begging of the question.

Our observations upon the question of law as to the extent of Mr. Hancock's monoply (see page 388) are in consonance with the opinions of all writers on the law of patents for inventions. It is not a new, but a very old reading, and one held to be correct and just by the first legal authorities, even under the old administration of the patent law, when every point was construed in the strictest sense, as against a patentee, and every objection to a patent considered to be good until its force was explained away by indubitable evidence.

In the most generally received work, of authority on the law of patents, it is laid down that,―

"A person may take for the foundation on which he intends to erect the superstructure of his improvements, either a thing that has been long known, or one that has lately been made public; either the subject of an expired patent, or that of one which is void. But if the improvement cannot be used without the subject of an existing grant, he must wait until it is expired. He may, however, at once take out a patent for the improvement by itself, and sell it. In all these cases he must claim nothing more than the mere addition."-Godson on the Law of Patents. -p. 74.

Now, Mr. Hancock's invention was simply, (and if it had been properly specified would have been so described) the construction of a steam boiler, in which there should be alternate vertical thin laminations of water, and heated air or flame from a furnace. This, it appears to us, was the invention for which Mr. H. obtained a patent,-and referring to his Narrative this view of the case is borne out. He commences his experiments with tubular boilers, but finds the division of the water too minute for practical purposes, he is consequently led to "consider of some arrangement by which

وو

the water exposed to the action of the fire should be less divided, and yet extend over a large surface." He accordingly invented the "flat-chambered " boiler, and for this he obtains a patent. The mode of joining together the plates and chambers of his boiler were mere subordinate points as regarded him, but might certainly be the subject of subordinate patents under his license, during the term of his patent right, or by himself or others, after its expiration. Accord ing to the requirements of the proviso in the patent, he is bound to declare in his specification "the nature of his invention and the manner in which it is to be performed." What we consider to be the nature of Mr. Hancock's invention we have just stated, and that is what he claims; "the manner in which it is to be performed, is necessary to be described according to the best of the inventor's knowledge and experience-but he is not to be bound by, and confined to, the precise method of putting the parts together, which he details. He must specify the most efficient means for carrying his invention into effect, as far as he has the power, either as resulting from experiment, or from mental consideration and design;-and this best means, in the inventor's opinion, is, as we have stated, only as per example. The process of manufacturing an article may legally and justly be the subject of a patent, where the article or thing to be manufactured is already public property; or, where patented, under license from the patentee;-but, it would strike at the root of a majority of the patents granted -of that class which are most worthy of protection, if any one, by merely contriving a different way of making an article, or a mere alteration or modification of that described by the first patentee in his specification, could make the patented article, and perhaps put the real inventor out of the market. Great and important inventions very frequently issue from persons unacquainted with the minor details of the branch of manufacture in relation to which the invention is made. The artisan is confined to some particular routine of operation, and is prejudiced in favour of it, or it never enters into his mind to strike out of the beaten track. A novice, perhaps for a single time, sees the operations of the factory; the relations and connections of the various

manipulations and proceedings one with another are made clear to him; and in the process of ratiocination, a more simple and direct means of obtaining the object suddenly occurs to him. He patents his invention, but being unacquainted with the minutiae of the proceedings of the manufacture, he cannot himself describe every rivet, bolt, screw, nail, shaft, lever, wheel, pinion or pulley, that is necessary to be used to carry out his invention; in this he must either trust to hired workmen, his patent agent, or make the best he can of it himself. He satisfies the law if he describes one way, the best to his knowledge, in which his invention can be carried into effect; and hard upon him would it be indeed, and most unjust, if one well skilled and experienced in the manufacture in question could turn upon him, and say that as he can perform the operation in a better or in a different manner from the patentee, he will deprive him of the fruits of his genius.

These latter remarks may not be exactly applicable to the case of Sir James and Mr. Hancock in the particular, but in the main they are. We are not in possession of the specifications of either of these gentlemen: our observations are founded on the same information which our readers possess the various particulars which have been published in our pages.

The distinction between the principle, which is not patentable, and the application of the principle which is, in Mr. Hancock's case is clear: the principle would be the division of the water to be evaporated into small portions, the better to expose it to the influence of the heat; Mr. Hancock's application of the principle is the so doing by flat thin chambers. The first inventor of division by tubes, could have sustained a patent for all ways of placing the tubes together. We question whether the principle of construction above-mentioned, viz. division of the water into a number of small portions might not have been the subject of a valid patent in the early history of the steam-engine, as distinguished from the large dome boiler containing one mass of water over the furnace; this would class Mr. Hancock's invention as the third step from the unpatentable principle.

It has been repeatedly brought forward by Mr. Hancock's various anta

gonists as a fatal ground of objection to his patent that the boiler which he now uses is an improvement upon that described by him in his specification. Upon this point we will again turn to the same authority as we have before quoted:

"If it appear that a better mode of using the manufacture be a subsequent discovery; that the patentee has since the date of the grant found out this new means of carrying on his own invention to a better effect, then the grant will continue valid."-Godson on Law of Patents, p. 124.

That the boiler which Mr. Hancock now uses is better than that which he originally patented is unquestionable, as it is also in our opinion that he has retained and adhered to the main and distinguishing features of his patent. It would be absurd to suppose that during fourteen years' experience 66 no new means of carrying on his invention with better effect" should occur, and it would be unjust to say he shall not use it.

Whether Sir James Anderson's patented boiler be an improvement upon Mr. Hancock's we have not yet heard of any experiments from which to judge: so great have been the expectations raised by his friends, perhaps injudiciously, that we have hesitated to give an opinion based upon theory alone, and have anxiously waited the starting of his embryo carriage. It was promised to be on the road before the coronation, but three additional months have elapsed without any sign of life. Only let Sir James perform a tithe of what has been done by Mr. Hancock, and he shall have our cordial support. Sir James, say his friends, has failed in twenty-nine carriages to succeed in the thirtieth-but we fear that twenty-nine stumbles are poor evidence of the thirtieth step being a sure one. Mr. Hancock has built ten vehicles, and every one has, in a measure, succeeded. Steam travelling on common roads we have always considered as a doubtful mercantile speculation, but we would very willingly have our doubts removed. Mr. Hancock we have praised and supported as persevering to effect his aim against no ordinary difficulties; and should Sir James, who boasts of having started about the same time, outstrip him in the race, we shall not be backward in awarding him the palm of victory, and his due meed of praise.