PERFECTION WINDOW CLEANBB 00, V. B0SLE7. 577 �position of parts, or of the extemal arrangement of things, to give patentability." Hailes v. Van Wormer, 20 Wall, 353. "Mechanieal skill is one thing; invention is a different thing. Perfection of workmanship, however much it may increaso the convenience, extend the use, or diminish expanse, is not patentable." Reckendorfer y. Faber, supra. �The distinction between mechanieal skill and inventive genius is well understood. In my judgment, the device in question , in its construction, involved only mechanieal skill. It is the case of the new use of an old and well-known arti- cle, so adjusted to an ordinary handle or holder as to make it capable of such new use; the adjustment of parts being purely inechanical, and only requiring the exercise of me- chanieal ingenuity. �There was exhibited to the court, as showing the state of the art when the letters patent in question were granted, an instrument previously used in cleaning the decks of ships, which consista of a broad strip of rubber firmly inserted in a wooden holder, connected with which is a handle, and which in its cleaning operation performs the service and is some- what in the form of an ordinary mop. It thus appears that rubber so arranged and adjusted, had been previously used for cleaning purposes, and although this implement, because of its size and general form, would not be adapted to the par- ticular use of cleaning windows, I cannot but think that the construction of complainant's device was but the carrying forward, or new, or more extended application of a thought original with others, and not such an invention as will sustain a patent. Furthermore, in 1873, what is known as the Mor- rison patent was issued, which was a patent for a scouring utensil, provided with scouring surfaces consisting of India rubber, and, although the form of this utensil as set forth in the drawings aceompanyingv the letters patent is essentially different from complainant's device, it being a solid piece of rubber attached to a handle in the form of a hair-brush, it is apparent that the idea of using India rubber for scouring and oleaning purposes was not new with the patentee in the Gay- ton patent, and if the Morrison patent be valid I deem it a �v.2,no.6— 37 ����
