Letters patent for inventions are grant ed for a term of seventeen years.
The law does not furnish any guarantee of the validity of the patent. It is neverthe less, prima facie evidence of its own valid ity; Pitts v. Hall, 2 Blatchf. 229, Fed. Cas. No. 11,192; it implies novelty and invention ; Valley I. Works v. Wood's Sons Co., 196 Fed. 780, 116 C. C. A. 46, that the defendant's de vice is patented may tend, when offered in evidence, to show non-infringement, in some cases. See Corning v. Burden, 15 How. (U. S.) 252, 14 L. Ed. 683.
The exclusive right of the patentee did not exist at common law ; it is created by acts of congress ; and no rights can be ac quired unless authorized by the statute and in the manner it prescribes; Dable Grain Shovel Co. v. Flint, 137 U. S. 41, 11 Sup. Ct. 8, 34 L. Ed. 618. The rights granted by the patent are confined within the limits of the United States ; consequently it does not ex tend to a foreign vessel lawfully entering one of our ports, where the patented im provement was placed upon her in a foreign port and authorized by the laws of the coun try to which she belongs ; Brown v. Duch esne, 19 How. (U. S.) 183, 15 L. Ed. 595.
Of the subject-matter of a patent. The act of July 8, 1870, § 24, provides for the granting of a patent to the first inventor or discoverer of any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improve ment thereof, not known ur used by others in this country, and not patented, or de scribed in any printed publication in this or any foreign country before his invention or discovery thereof, and not in public use or on sale for more than two years prior to his application, unless the same is proved to have been abandoned. By act of March 3, 1897 (in effect January 1, 1898), amend ing this section, the patenting or publication of an invention in a foreign country, if more than two years before the application in this country bars a patent.
There are five classes of inventions which may be the subjects of patents: first, an art; second, a machine ; third, a manufac ture ; fourth, a composition of matter ; and fifth, design. In Great Britain, ]etters pat ent granting exclusive privileges can be is sued only to the inventors of a "new manu facture." But the English courts in defining
the meaning of the term, have construed the word "manufacture" to be coextensive in signification with the whole of the first four classes of inventions thus recognized by our law. An art or process, a machine, and a composition of matter are all regarded there as manufactures. The field of mechanical invention in Great Britain is, therefore, coin cident with that provided by our law, and the legal subject-matter of patents is the same in each country ; 2 B. & Ald. 349; 2 M. & W. 544. But, inasmuch as we have three other classes of mechanical inventions. the term "manufacture" has a more limited signification here than it receives in Great Britain.
A process is an art or method by which any particular result is produced. Where a result or effect is produced by chemical action, by the operation or application of some element or power of nature, or of one substance to another, such modes, methods, or operations are called processes. A new process is usually the result of discovery ; a machine, of invention. The arts of tan ning, dyeing, vulcanizing india-rubber, smelt ing ores, etc., are usually carried on by pro cesses, as distinguished from machines. But the term process is often employed more vaguely in a secondary sense in which it cannot be the subject of a patent. Thus, we say that a board is undergoing the process of being planed, grain of being ground, iron of being hammered or rolled. Here the term is used subjectively or passively, as applied to the material operated on, and not to the method or mode of producing that operation, which is by mechanical means, or the use of a machine as distinguished from a pro cess. In this use of the term it represents the function of a machine, or the effect pro duced by it on the material subjected to the action of the machine, and does not consti tute a patentable subject-matter, because there cannot be a valid patent for the func tion 'or abstract effect of a machine, but only for the machine which produces it. Corning v. Burden, 15 How. (U. S.) 267, 14 L. Ed. 683.