In thus denying that a new "shape or configuration" of an article, whereby utility or convenience is promoted, is the proper subject of a patent under the acts referred to, the Office would seem to have involved itself in the absurdity that if a design is useless it may be patented; whereas, if it be useful, it is entitled to no protection. Fortunately no such "uniform practice" has existed, and the Office is relieved from so grievous an imputation. The practice seems to have been taken for granted by the appellate tribunals, and, so far from being 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 configuration sought to be secured shall, at least, be new and original as applied to articles of manufacture. But here the shape is a common one in many articles of manufacture, and its application to a reel cannot fairly be said to be the result of industry, genius, effort, and expense. No advantage whatever is pretended to be derived from the