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 them to a patent of this class. The second question relates to the elements of utility in patents for designs. Upon this point, it is said by my predecessor, in Jason Crane _ex parte_ Commissioners, December-May, 1869, p. 1, that the construction which has been given to the act of 1842, by the Office, ever since its passage, is that it relates to designs for ornament merely; something of an artistic character as contradistinguished to those of convenience or utility. The Board of Examiners-in-Chief, in the present case, say "The practice of the Office has been uniform from the beginning, and has always excluded cases like the present from the benefit of the laws relating to designs." And, again, "The general understanding has always been that the acts of 1842 and 1861 were intended to cover articles making pretensions to artistic excellence exclusively."