Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/291

 ANDREWS V. CEOSS. 277 �where the well is not a flowing well, the claiiri' is a daim to the pro- cess substantially as deseribed, being the process above explained in case of a non-flowing well, au inherent coastituent of which is the driving process, the process claimed, however, iucluding the other modes of operation which attend the proouring, by a pump, of water from a tube in a well so constructed. In this view, where the well is a non -flowing well, the use, to procure water, of a pump in a well thus constructed and having ita features, is a use of the process, although the person using the well and the pump and the process may not be the person who caused the rod to be driven, or the hole to be made, or the tube to be inserted, or the pump to be attached^ This re-issued patent was under consideration in Andrews y. Carman, 1 3 Blatchf. 307. In the decision of Judge Benedict, in that case, the re-issued patent was held to be valid ; the state of the art of con- structing wells at the time Green made his invention was explained ; the peculiar features of Green's driven well were commented on ; the claim was held to be a claim to a process, the element of novelty in it consisting in driving a tube tightly into the earth, without removing the earth upwards, to serve as a well-pit, and attaching thereto a pump, so that the process puts to practioal use the new principle of forcing the water in the water-bearing strata of the earth from the earth into a well-pit, by the use of artificial power applied to oreate a vacuum in the water-bearing strata of the earth, and at the same time in the well-pit; and it was also held, that the claim might well be construed as claiming the well as a manufacture constructed accord- ing to the process deseribed. The evidence in the present case shows that any person, by using a pump, applied as direoted, on the tube directed, in the well constructed as directed, will put to practical use wbat is in Andrews v. Carman defined to be the "new principle." Al- though the specification does not state wbat such new principle is, the evidence in the present case shows what it is, and that it is cer- tainly and effectively developed, to the end of ohtaining a copions, continuons, and unfailing supply of good water, and that it is what is thus set forth in Andreicsw. Carman. It may be that the inventor did not know what the scientific principle was, or that, knowing it, he omitted, from accident or design, to set it forth. That does not vitiate the patent. He sets forth the process or mode of operation which ends in the resuit, and the meana for working out the process or mode of operation. The principle referred to is only the why and the wherefore. That is not required to be set forth. Under section 20 of the act of July 8, 1870, (16 St. at Large, 201,) under which ��� �