Novelty and increased utility in an improvement upon previous
devices do not necessarily make it an invention.
A device which displays only the expected skill of the maker's
calling, and involves only the exercise of ordinary faculties of
reasoning upon materials supplied by special knowledge and facility
of manipulation resulting from habitual intelligent practice, is in
no sense a creative work of inventive
Page 113 U. S. 60
faculty, such as the Constitution and the patent laws aim to
encourage and reward.
The third claim in the specification and claims of the patent
issued to Edward A. Locke, August 3, 1869, for an improvement in
revenue stamps, although new and useful, is not such an improvement
upon the devices previously in use, as entitles it to be regarded
as an invention.
While it would seem clear that a suit may be maintained in the
Court of Claims against the United States to recover for the use of
a patented invention by an officer of the government for its
benefit, if the right of the patentee is acknowledged;
semble that it may even be maintained when the exclusive
right of the patentee is contested.
This was a bill in equity brought by the assignees of a patent
granted to Edward A. Locke, August 3, 1869, for an "improvement of
a revenue stamp for barrels, and identifying marks, stamps, or
labels, for revenue purposes," against a collector of internal
revenue. The bill alleged infringements by the defendant, and
prayed for a temporary injunction, a perpetual injunction, an
accounting, and damages. The answer set up the official position of
the defendant in the use of the stamps alleged to be infringements;
denied that he had infringed; denied that the alleged invention was
new or useful, or that it was patentable, and averred that so much
of it as related to the cancellation, affixing, and removal of
stamps, and identification of packages was not patentable.
The court below sustained the patent, and found that the
defendant had infringed it, and decreed a perpetual injunction, and
an accounting, and the payment of what might be found due as
profits. From this decree the collector appealed.
MR. JUSTICE MATTHEWS delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a bill in equity to enjoin the alleged infringement of
letters patent No. 93,391, issued to Edward A. Locke for certain
improvements in identifying revenue marks or labels, dated August
3, 1869, the appellees being assignees of the patentee,
Page 113 U. S. 61
and the appellant, the collector of internal revenue for the
Second collection district of Connecticut.
The specification and claims, with the accompanying drawings,
are as follows:
image:a
"This invention is designed more especially for use in sealing
liquor casks with identifying marks or labels for revenue purposes,
and in such a manner that, while truly designating the contents of
the cask, or giving such other indication as may be demanded, they
cannot be fraudulently removed."
"Fig. 1 represents a printed paper revenue stamp, the circular
portion at the right hand being the stamp proper, which is applied
to the cask or box, and the portion at the left hand being the
'stub,' or that portion retained by the government official.
Page 113 U. S. 62
Fig. 2 represents a separate strip, which is shown in Fig. 1 as
attached at its left end to the stub of the paper stamp proper, in
such manner that its coupons may be readily cut off and permanently
affixed to the stamp proper when the latter is secured to the cask.
Fig. 3 represents a metallic piece or strip, shown as detached, and
before being applied to the stamp."
"The main body of the sheet of paper being printed substantially
as shown, so as to designate by a letter of the alphabet, or
otherwise, the appropriate series, and with blanks for the
particular number of each series, and also with a number indicating
numbers of gallons, etc., in tens, has also a series of numbers,
from one to nine, inclusive, anyone of which may be punched out by
the proper official, in accordance with the actual number of
gallons contained in the vessel. Thus, if 126 be the proper number
of gallons, and 120 be the whole number printed upon the particular
stamp, the officer, in order to indicate 126, would punch through
the digital number 6, both upon the circular stamp and upon its
'stub' or counter check."
"The piece shown in Fig. 3 I prefer to make of thin metal,
because more readily embossed or impressed with permanent or
ineffaceable characters and because less destructible in handling
and transmission after it shall have been torn away from the stamp.
This piece (also shown in part in Fig. 1) may be conveniently made
of oblong or any appropriate form, its conditions being merely, so
far as concerns its shape, that it be of sufficient size to extend
beyond the opening made in the paper for the exposure of the
letters and figures made on it, and be capable of being retained in
its place between the paper and another backing piece of paper, the
two pieces of paper being gummed together for this purpose. This
backing piece I prepare with dried gum on its outer face, that the
stamp may be always ready by merely moistening the gum for instant
application to the cask. The strip shown in Fig. 2 I secure in part
to the left side of the paper by gumming its remaining portion,
upon which are coupons for the units, being dry gummed on its under
side so that, when the proper number of gallons has been
determined,
Page 113 U. S. 63
the officer, upon cutting off the coupon at the figure
designating the unit or digital number required, may, by moistening
it, instantly, and without cutting or injuring the stamp, apply it
to the stamp, while the stub or remaining portion of the slip will
correspondingly indicate thereon just what has been so detached and
applied to the stamp. Thus, to indicate 126 gallons, 120 being the
whole number of the stamp, the coupon slip is cut off between the
numbers 6 and 7, and the piece so cut off is moistened on the back
and permanently attached to the face of the stamp, the 6 being the
significant figure of the coupon."
"The mode of applying a stamp so made to a cask may be, by way
of greater protection against liability to damage or accident, as
shown and described in patent No. 58,847 -- that is, by boring a
shallow depression in the wood of the cask or case, and after
affixing the stamp by its gum to the bottom of this depression,
then placing over it a ring having down turned edges, and, by
pressing the same, forcing its outer edge into the wood. Or the
wood may have an annular groove cut therein to receive the edge of
the ring when so forced home."
"Instead of making the removable piece out of metal or of making
it in a piece separate from the stamp, it may be made of the same
piece of paper of which the stamp is composed by simply having its
outline perforated after the manner of postage stamps, but ungummed
at its back, so as readily to be torn away and detached from the
stamp."
"Although I have shown and described a lining paper between
which and the stamp or surface paper the metal slip is held, yet I
may dispense with such lining and employ a thicker paper for the
stamp, the metal strip in such case, if preferred, being confined
or held to it by having its ends pass through slits made in the
paper for such purpose. Or the metal piece may have points or
projections at its ends or corners or elsewhere which may be forced
or passed through the paper and clinched on the under side."
"For the purpose of readily separating the circular stamp from
the sheet, I perforate it about its periphery with any
Page 113 U. S. 64
suitable slits, cuts, or openings adapted to the thickness or
texture of the paper. I also prefer to have the stamps prepared
with blanks and dotted lines, on which the collector, gauger and
storekeeper may place their signatures, as shown in Fig. 1."
"It is to be understood that the metallic or other slip, the
stub or check part of the stamp paper, and also the stub of the
coupon piece, are all to be consecutively numbered alike for each
alphabetical series, the capital letter, A, in the drawings
indicating the alphabetical series, and the number immediately to
the right thereof indicating a number in the consecutive numbers of
such series."
"For convenience, I prefer to have the stamps, after being
printed, bound up in book form, after the manner of merchants' or
bankers' checkbooks, so that each stamp, as cut out, shall leave in
the book its corresponding marginal piece or stub, having thereon a
record of letters, figures, marks, etc., according with those upon
such stamps."
"I claim -- "
"1. A stamp the body of which is made of paper or other suitable
material and having a removable slit of metal or other material
displaying thereon a serial number or other specific identifying
mark corresponding with a similar mark upon the stub, and so
attached that the removal of such slip must mutilate or destroy the
stamp."
"2. In a paper revenue stamp for indicating the contents of a
cask, and having thereon a number designing the number of gallons
or other measure, providing the stamp, and also its stub or check
piece, with corresponding digital numbers, to be punched out to
indicate the units, substantially as described."
"3. In combination with a paper stamp having a check piece or
stub from which it is detached when applied for use, a coupon slip
whose coupons are to be secured to the face of the stamp, as and
for the purpose described."
The following is a copy of the face of the tax paid internal
revenue stamp used by the appellant, and claimed to be an
infringement of the patent:
Page 113 U. S. 65
image:b
As described by the complainant's witnesses, this stamp
"is composed of a single thickness of paper on the face of which
the number and registering marks are conveniently placed. On the
back of this stamp is a piece of paper somewhat wider
Page 113 U. S. 66
than the surface, on which the number and registering marks are
printed. The two edges of this back piece are caused to adhere to
the back of the stamp, one above and the other below that portion
of the surface which indicates the number, contents, etc. The back
of the stamp, between the two edges of this strip or back piece, is
free and loose. The object of this is that when the back of the
stamp is coated with adhesive material and attached to the barrel,
that portion of the surface of the stamp which is covered by the
strip or back piece will not adhere to the barrel; hence, after the
stamp is secured to the barrel, that portion of the stamp on which
are the registering marks may be removed and preserve the marks and
figures thereon, the removal of that part defacing the stamp as
well as preserving the record, and this can be done because that
portion of the stamp which is removed is prevented from adhering to
the barrel. To remove this portion, it is only necessary to
separate that portion from the body at its two edges."
This is marked in the record as "Complainant's Exhibit Hollister
Revenue Stamp."
The present controversy relates to the first claim of the Locke
patent, in respect to which alone the decree appealed from
established an infringement. It is as follows:
"A stamp, the body of which is made of paper or other material
and having a removable slip of metal or other material displaying
thereon a serial number or other specific identifying mark
corresponding with a similar mark upon the stub, and so attached
that the removal of such slip must mutilate or destroy the
stamp."
One of the defenses relied on by the appellant is thus stated in
the answer, and, in matter of fact, is by stipulation admitted to
be true:
"First. That any and all acts complained of in said bill by the
said petitioner, as done by the respondent, were done and performed
by him in the discharge of his duties as collector of internal
revenue for the United States for a designated collection district
of the State of Connecticut, and by direction of the Commissioner
of Internal Revenue, an officer of the Treasury Department of the
United States; that any revenue stamps by
Page 113 U. S. 67
him used have been furnished by the Bureau of Internal Revenue,
of which said Commissioner is the official head, for use in the
discharge of said duties as collector, and the same have been used
solely as a means of collecting the taxes due to the United States,
which said taxes have been imposed by the laws of the United
States, and the manner of said collection, as followed by said
collector, regulated and authorized by such laws; that said
respondent has acted as such collector by virtue of legal
appointments thereto by the President of the United States, duly
confirmed by the Senate of the United States, for and during all
the times mentioned in said bill of complaint."
It was authoritatively declared in
James v. Campbell,
104 U. S. 356,
that the right of the patentee, under letters patent for an
invention granted by the United States, was exclusive of the
government of the United States as well as of all others, and stood
on the footing of all other property the right to which was
secured, as against the government, by the constitutional guarantee
which prohibits the taking of private property for public use
without compensation; but doubts were expressed whether a suit
could be sustained, such as the present, against public officers,
or whether a suit upon an implied promise of indemnity might not be
prosecuted against the United States by name in the Court of
Claims. If the right of the patentee was acknowledged, and without
his consent an officer of the government, acting under legislative
authority, made use of the invention in the discharge of his
official duties, it would seem to be a clear case of the exercise
of the right of eminent domain, upon which the law would imply a
promise of compensation, an action on which would lie within the
jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, such as was entertained and
sanctioned in the case of
United States v. Great Falls
Manufacturing Co., 112 U. S. 645. And
it may be that even if the exclusive right of the patentee were
contested, such an action might be brought in that court involving
all questions relating to the validity of the patent; but as we
have concluded to dispose of the present appeal upon other grounds,
it becomes unnecessary to decide the question arising upon this
defense. It is referred to only for the purpose of excluding any
inference
Page 113 U. S. 68
that might be drawn from our passing it over without notice.
The course of business in the collection of the revenue upon
distilled spirits, so far as the use of these stamps is involved,
is explained by Mr. Chapman, a witness for the defendant below, who
had been chief of the stamp division in the Internal Revenue
Office. He says:
"After spirits have been produced, they are drawn from the
cistern into the barrels, and there is attached to each barrel a
stamp called a warehouse stamp, together with certain marks and
brands put on simultaneously with the stamp; this stamp is an
oblong piece of paper properly engraved, with blanks in which are
inserted the numbers of the package, the number of wine and proof
gallons contained therein, name of the distiller, location of the
distillery, and are signed by the storekeeper and gauger on duty at
the distillery. This stamp is merely used as a check, and does not
represent a tax; the stamp consists of but one piece of paper about
three by two inches, and is attached by paste or other adhesive
material, and by tacks at the corner and center, by the gauger on
duty at the distillery. This stamp (warehouse) has been in use from
1868 to the present time, and no change has been made in the
construction of the same, the only changes being in the quality and
kind of paper used and the designs of the engraving."
"The package is then removed to the bonded warehouse of the
distillery, where it remains until the distiller files with the
collector of the district a paper, called an entry for withdrawal;
this paper is accompanied by the amount of the tax upon the spirits
contained in the package; the collector thereupon fills out, signs,
and forwards to the gauger the tax paid stamp, which is a piece of
paper nearly square, upon the face of which is engraved the body of
the stamp, together with nine coupons, of which stamp and coupons,
with the stub which remains in the books from which the stamp is
cut, complainant's Exhibit Hollister Revenue Stamp is a copy. From
1868 until about 1871, this stamp, which has always been called the
tax paid stamp, was constructed of two pieces of paper; before the
stamp was printed, the paper of which the
Page 113 U. S. 69
body of the stamp was composed was perforated with a round
aperture, about one and a half inches in diameter; to the back of
the paper was then attached, by paste or mucilage, a piece of
tissue paper completely covering said aperture; the stamp was then
printed, the engraving covering both the body of the paper and so
much of the tissue paper as appears through the aperture. From
about 1871 to 1875, the stamp was composed of but one piece of
paper, the use of the tissue paper and the aperture having been
abandoned. In August, 1871, there was added to the tax paid stamp a
piece of paper which was pasted by its edges upon the back thereof,
as shown in complainant's Exhibit Hollister Revenue Stamp. Stamps
of the latter character have been in use from August, 1875, to this
date."
"On receipt of the tax paid stamps by the gauger, he proceeds to
affix them to the head of the barrel, together with certain marks
and brands; he, together with the storekeeper, having first signed
the same at the places indicated in complainant's Exhibit Hollister
Revenue Stamp. The gauger puts this stamp on the barrel by means of
some adhesive material and tacks; he then cancels it by the use of
a stencil plate, imprinting across the face of the stamp and
extending over each side upon the head of the barrel waved lines;
he also imprints upon the head with a stencil plate his name and
official designation. The whole surface of the stamp is then
varnished with a transparent varnish; no varnish can be used which
is oily enough to affect the paste."
"The package is then removed from the warehouse and passes into
the custody of the distiller or owner. If the owner desires to
purify the contents of the package, it is then taken to the
establishment of a duly authorized rectifier of distilled spirits.
The rectifier then notifies the collector of the district that he
desires to dump for rectification the contents of certain specified
packages, whereupon the collector directs a gauger to proceed to
the rectifying establishment and gauge the specified packages. When
the packages are gauged, the gauger is required by regulations to
cut from the tax paid stamp a designated portion thereof and
transmit the same to the collector, with a report of his
operations. The packages are then dumped
Page 113 U. S. 70
into the tubs of the rectifier, and the identity of their
contents lost. . . ."
"The portion of the tax paid stamp detached or cut and forwarded
by the gauger as heretofore described includes the serial number of
the stamp, the date on which the tax was paid, and the number of
proof gallons; the number of the cask, the location of the
warehouse, and the person or firm to whom delivered, and the
signature of the collector; the part so cut out is over the paper
back."
The employment of the paper backing in the stamp used by the
appellant, whereby the part to be cut out is prevented from
adhering to the head of the barrel, and the arrangement of a part
of the stamp so as to identify the package with that described in
the stub, the removal of which destroys the stamp so that it cannot
be used again, constitute the alleged infringement of the first
claim of the Locke patent, which covers every stamp within that
description.
The counsel for the appellee describes
"the Locke stamp as a combination of three parts: 1st, a part
which is designed to become a stub when the stamp proper is
separated therefrom, and displays a serial number; 2d, a
constituent part of the stamp proper which is designed for
permanent attachment to the barrel; 3d, a constituent part of the
stamp proper displaying the same identifying serial number as the
stub, which part, after the stamp proper has been affixed to the
barrel, bears such relation to the permanent part that it can be so
removed therefrom as to retain its own integrity, but mutilates and
thereby cancels the stamp by its removal."
In this combination it will not be questioned that the first and
second elements were well known, and that the third, so far as its
contents are identical with those on the stub, is not new. The
question turns on that feature of the third element where, by a
removable part of the stamp proper, the contents of which identify
the stamp with the stub after the stamp has been attached, can be
so removed as to retain its own integrity, but mutilates and
thereby cancels the stamp by its removal.
This is what we ascertain to be the precise idea embodied in
Page 113 U. S. 71
the invention described and claimed in the patent, and which,
although we find to be new in the sense that it had not been
anticipated by any previous invention, of which it could therefore
be declared to be an infringement, yet is not such an improvement
as is entitled to be regarded in the sense of the patent laws as an
invention.
In reaching this conclusion, we have allowed its due weight to
the presumption in favor of the validity of the patent arising from
the action of the Patent Office in granting it, and we have not
been unmindful of the fact, abundantly proven, and indeed not
denied, that the adoption of the present tax paid stamp, in lieu of
that previously in use by the Internal Revenue Bureau, has proven
its superior utility in the prevention of frauds upon the revenue.
The testimony on that point of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
from his official reports is quite conclusive. In his report for
1875, he mentions the adoption of
"new regulations in regard to the use of tax paid stamps, by
which a portion of the stamp is cut out at the time of dumping and
returned with the gauger's report,"
and says:
"This effectually destroys the stamp and prevents its reuse,
while at the same time a sufficient amount of the engraving is
shown upon the slip to determine whether the stamp is genuine,"
and, in 1876, that official reported that
"the plan of requiring the return of a portion of the tax paid
stamps whenever a package to which it is attached is dumped for
rectification has been found to be such a valuable prevention of
fraud that it has been extended to include all stamps for rectified
spirits and wholesale liquor dealers' stamps."
"These three varieties of stamps for distilled spirits are now
prepared at a trifling additional cost, with a paper back affixed
to each in such a way that the portion of the stamp containing all
the important data can be cut therefrom and filed with the
commissioner or collector, thus furnishing conclusive evidence of
the destruction of the stamp (rendering its reuse impossible), and
furnishing also evidence as to the contents of the package bearing
the stamp."
"It is believed that this system affords the government a very
effectual protection against the perpetration of frauds
Page 113 U. S. 72
in connection with the collection of the tax on distilled
spirits."
Such an increased utility, beyond what had been attained by
devices previously in use, in cases of doubt, is usually regarded
as determining the question of invention. But in the present case,
we are not able to give it such effect.
No change, it will be observed, was made in the character of the
stamp so far as the relation between the stamp proper and the stub
is concerned, nor in the identifying marks which constituted the
written and printed matter upon both, and the expedient of using a
paper backing which prevented the adhesion to the package of the
part intended to be detached and removed, it is manifest, would be
adopted by any skilled person having that end in view.
The idea of detaching that portion of the stamp, with the double
effect of destroying the stamp by mutilation and preserving the
evidence of the identity of the package on which it had been first
placed in use, which is all that remains to constitute the
invention, seems to us not to spring from that intuitive faculty of
the mind put forth in the search for new results or new methods
creating what had not before existed or bringing to light what lay
hidden from vision, but, on the other hand, to be the suggestion of
that common experience which arose spontaneously, and by a
necessity of human reasoning, in the minds of those who had become
acquainted with the circumstances with which they had to deal.
Cutting out a portion of the stamp as a means of defacing and
mutilating it so as to prevent a second use was matter of common
knowledge and practice before the date of this patent, and cutting
out a particular portion on which the identifying marks had been
previously written or printed was simply cutting a stub from the
stamp instead of cutting the stamp from the stub, as before. So
that when the frequency and magnitude of the frauds upon the
revenue committed by the removal of tax paid stamps from packages
on which they had been originally placed by the officer to others
surreptitiously substituted for them, or by emptying the packages
of their original contents and fraudulently refilling them with
spirits on which no tax
Page 113 U. S. 73
had been paid, attracted the general attention of the revenue
department, the answer to the problem of prevention was found by
immediate inference from the existing regulations, in the adoption
of the expedient now in question. As soon as the mischief became
apparent and the remedy was seriously and systematically studied by
those competent to deal with the subject, the present regulation
was promptly suggested and adopted, just as a skilled mechanic,
witnessing the performance of a machine, inadequate by reason of
some defect, to accomplish the object for which it had been
designed, by the application of his common knowledge and experience
perceives the reason of the failure and supplies what is obviously
wanting. It is but the display of the expected skill of the
calling, and involves only the exercise of the ordinary faculties
of reasoning upon the materials supplied by a special knowledge,
and the facility of manipulation which results from its habitual
and intelligent practice, and is in no sense the creative work of
that inventive faculty which it is the purpose of the Constitution
and the patent laws to encourage and reward.
On this ground,
The decree of the circuit court is reversed and the cause
remanded with directions to enter a decree dismissing the
bill.