Second, the English patent practice before and contemporaneous with the 1793
Act confirms the notion that patentable subject matter was limited by the term
“manufacture” in the Statute of Monopolies and required a relation to the other
categories of patentable subject matter. The organization of human activity was not
within its bounds. Rather, the patents registered in England under the Statute of
Monopolies before 1793 were limited to articles of manufacture, machines for
manufacturing, compositions of matter, and related processes. A complete list of such
patents (with a few missing patents from the 17th century) was published in the mid-
1800s by Bennet Woodcroft, the first head of the English Patent Office.
Representative examples of patented processes at the time include: “Method of making
a more easy and perfect division in stocking frame-work manufactures,” No. 1417 to
John Webb (1784); “Making and preparing potashes and pearl-ashes of materials not
before used for the purpose,” No. 1223 to Richard Shannon (1779); “Making salt from
sea-water or brine, by steam,” No. 1006 to Daniel Scott (1772); “Milling raw hides and
skins so as to be equally good for leather as if tanned,” No. 893 to George Merchant
(1768); “Making salt, and removing the corrosive nature of the same, by a separate
preparation of the brine,” No. 416 to George Campbell (1717); and “Making good and
merchantable tough iron . . . with one-fifth of the expense of charcoal as now used,” No.
113 to Sir Phillibert Vernatt (1637).
Nothing in Woodcroft’s list suggests that any of these hundreds of patents was
on a method for organizing human activity, save for one aberrational patent discussed
12
Bennet Woodcroft, Alphabetical Index of Patentees of Inventions, from
March 2, 1617 (14 James I) to October 1, 1852 (16 Victoriae) (2d ed. 1857)).
2007-1130 9