as stated, is, as nearly as possible, the reverse of it. Articles have
been, and are being, constantly patented as designs which possess no
element of the artistic or ornamental, but are valuable solely because,
by a new shape or configuration, they possess more utility than the
prior forms of like articles Of this character are designs for ax heads,
for reflectors, for lamp shades, for the soles of boots and shoes, which
have been heretofore patented as designs, and to this class might be
added, with great propriety, that class of so-called "mechanical"
patents, granted for mere changes of form, such as plowshares, fan
blowers, propeller blades, and others of like character.

When, therefore, my learned predecessor in Crane's case added to this
number a box so designed as to hold with convenience a set of furs, he
did but confirm and not alter the practice of the Office, so far as it
can be gleaned from the patented cases. I am of opinion that the class
of cases named in the act as arising from "new shape or configuration"
includes within it all those mere changes of form which involve increase
of utility. This I take to be the spirit of the decision in Wooster
_vs_. Crane, 2 Fisher 583. The design was of a reel in the shape of a
rhombus. The learned Judge says "In this case, the reel itself, as an
article of manufacture, is conceded to be old and not the subject of
a patent. The shape applied to it by the complainant is also an old,
well-known mathematical figure. Now although it does not appear that
any person ever before applied this particular shape to this particular
article, I cannot think that the act quoted above was intended to secure
to the complainant an exclusive right to use this well known figure in
the manufacture of reels. The act, although it does not require utility
in order to secure the benefit of its provisions, does require that
the shape produced shall be the result of industry, effort genius, or
expense, and must also, I think, be held to require that the shape or