in the center of the mold or eccentric thereto."

In the consideration of the case by the Court no objection was made to this statement or claim. In the case of Root _vs_. Ball, 4 McLean 180, the learned judge instructed the jury that "if they should find that the defendants had infringed the plaintiff's patent by using substantially the same device as ornamental on the same part of the stove they would, of course, find the defendant guilty. To infringe a patent right it is not necessary that the thing patented should be adopted in every particular; but if, as in the present case, the design and figures were substantially adopted by the defendants, they have infringed the plaintiff's right. If they adopt the same principle the defendants are guilty. The principle of a machine is that combination of mechanical powers which produce a certain result. And in a case like the present, where ornaments are used for a stove, it is an infringement to adopt the design so as to produce substantially the same appearance."

It has been the constant practice to grant patents for designs for fonts of type, for sets of silver plate, for a series of printers' flourishes, and the like. This class of cases has always passed without objection.

Two other cases which have arisen within the Office deserve notive. The first was for a series of miniature shoulder straps, with emblems denoting rank, provided with a pin, to be worn under an officer's coat, upon his vest, or as a lady's breastpin. The drawing shows eight of these pins with emblems of rank, varying from that of second lieutenant to major-general, specification describing the brooch for a second lieutenant goes on to say: "I propose to introduce, on some of them, the different ornaments showing the respective ranks of the army, from a major-generalship to a second lieutenancy. See Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8."

The second case was that of an application for a monogram visiting card, on which the name was to be inscribed or printed in the form of a monogram. The applicant filed a drawing, showing a card upon which was a monogram of his own name. In his specification he gives certain rules for forming such monograms, and then says: "It is manifest that the form of the letters as well as the letters themselves can be changed as required by circumstances or the taste of the individual for whom the monogram is designed; and that the general form and outline of the monogram may be varied; and indeed, must vary to be adapted to the particular name it is required to represent."

The claim was for "a monogram, visiting card, or visiting card upon which the name is inscribed or printed in the form of a monogram, substantially as herein specified."

This application was rejected by the Examiner and Board of Examiners-in-Chief, but was allowed by the Commissioner upon appeal.

It is true that, before and since this patent was issued, many patents have been refused for what I have called generic designs. One man having designed a tack head, ornamented with radial lines, was compelled to take out one patent for his tack with six radial lines, and another for the same tack with eight. There are other instances of like character, but they only serve to show that the practice of the Office has not been uniform, and that the true practice is still to be adopted and followed.

I have no hesitation in saying, in view of the premises, that a valid patent may be granted for a new genus or class of ornaments as well as for specific ornaments, though I do not doubt that, under the statute, every species, variety, and individual having distinct characteristics under such a genus might also be patented, the patent being subordinate and tributary to that which covered the class. From the nature of this subject-matter there must always be more latitude in the issue of patents for trifling changes, or form, or outline, since it is only necessary that such changes should constitute a new "design" to entitle