Palmer,  2  Brock.  Marsh.  298.  And  the  structure  in  detail  of  the
entire  and  improved  machine  need  not  be  given.  To  describe  the
improvement  itself  by  showing  the  parts  of  which  it  consists,  and
the  effects  which  it  produces,  is  enough.  Brooks  v.  Bicknell,  3  Mc-
Lean, 250;  1   West.  L.  J.  150.
In  a  case  of  an  improvement  in  the  construction  of  railroad  cars,
the  most  essential  feature  of  which  consisted  in  locating  the  two  sets
of  trucks  as  remotely  from  each  other  as  convenient  for  the  sup-
port of  the  carriage,  and  bringing  the  two  axles  of  each  truck  as


Digitized  by  Microsoft®


14  UNITED  STATES  LAWS.
near  as  possible  to  each  other,  it  was  held,  that  the  specificatian
need  not  specify  in  feet  and  inches  the  exact  distance  from  the  ends
of  the  car  body  at  which  it  would  be  best  to  arrange  the  trucks,  or
the  exact  distance  between  the  two  axles.     Winans  v.  Schenectady

6  Troy  R.  R.  Co.,  2  Blatchf.  279.
GG.     Of  Gom;positions  of  Matter.
The  cpecificfition  to  accompany  a  patent  for  a  new  substance  to
be  formed  by  means  of  chemical  combinations  of  known  materials
should  state  tlio  component  parts  of  the  new  manufacture  claimed
with  clearness  and  precision,  and  not  leave  the  person  attempting
to  use  the  discovery,  to  find  out  the  exact  proportions  by  experi-
ment. The  law  requires  the  applicant  to  deliver  a  written  descrip-
tion of  the  manner  and  process  of  making  and  compounding  his
newly-discovered  compound.  Giving  the  names  of  the  materials
only,  without  stating  the  proportions,  or  stating  them  vaguely,  is
not  a  sufficient  specification,  as  it  will  not  enable  a  person  to  make
the  compound.     Wood  «.  Underbill,  6  How.  1  ;    Tyler  v.  Boston,

7  Wall.  327;  Jenkins  v.  Walker,  1  Holmes,  120.
