wnsr 1:. nA1st: 47
bags in use in retailjstores where the lips of the mouth were coated with '
gum so as to admit of closing the mouth by moistening this gum and l
folding the lips over against the side; but, without such observation, I
say that, when once you are instructed how to close one end of a bag
with paste or gum, there can be no invention in closing the other by_ the
same means. — . . . l ’
1 Nor is there anything patentable inthe idea of adapting the form of
the bag to the article it is to inclose or contain. A paper bag,is but
a paper wrapper partly-put together for,use. If it was intended only to
Liuclose loose articles, like codec, ilour, etc,, no attempt would be made
to confine it to a particular shape; but if the manufacturer of loaf sugar,
(for instance, in the pyramidal iforrn,;·with which we are all familiar,
should wish to incase his loaves in paper bags instead of paper wrap-
; pingsvtied with a string, hewould, of,course, shape his bags upon a
" form " like his sugar loaves; and in fact this patentee’s bags for a blanket
are nothing more than the paper wrappings of a sugar loaf, with the
paper fastened by paste, instead of being tied with a string to keep them
in place.
I ammotiaware that the practice of raising-by gdemurrer the question,
based on common knowledge, that a patent is void for want of novelty,
has the direct sanction of any adjudgedcase,. but the books abound in
cases where the court has of its common knowledge sua sponte heldpat-
ents void‘forwant of patentable novelty. ln Brcum v. Piper, 91 U.e'S.
?i4Q.Mr¥Ji¤¤ti¤¢ $W»tYN¤;¤¤idf »,A;;   `“'`    ·` , A   .. T   _1..
¤» l "Thercourt  will take judicial? cogntzahce of whatever is generally kinown
" within the jtimits of their jnrlsdictionyand ifthe dudge’s memory is at fault.
*`r 11e*ma‘y*refreshiit by resorting tb any means for that purpose whiclnlzie may
-deem safe and proper." *   U · l * v' ` “ A
And after this statement of the right of the court to apply its oonnnon
knowledge to the casein hand, he said: U       lA_' gv.   _,_,_  
"The pleadings and proof in the case under consideration are silent as to
the ice-cream freezer; but it is a thing inthe common knowledge of the peo-
, ple througpout the country, ljlotice and proofpweretherefore unneéessary.
Phe statn requiring notice was not intended to apply tosueh cases. The court
can takejudicial notice of it, and giveiit the same effect as if it hadbeen set
-· up in the answer, and the proofiwere plenary." a ._ _ . f . z ' ;·
· ‘ Andagain: ‘ '  l »_ V ,   · j ·
_ f‘E>camined in the light of these cohsiderationsgiwe think this patent was
void upon itsfface, and that ~the·oourt might have stopped short at that in-
»sti·urnent,·[the.patentitself,] and, without looking?beyond itrinto the answers
amd testimony sua. sponte, ,ifthoiobjections_ were not·_taken, by counsel, well
, have adjudged in favor of the defendant? th , i N
r And athe rule here stated has been affirmed since this decision in Ter-
Jmne v. Phillips, 99 U., S. 592; ·Dunbar v. Myers, 94 U. S. 187; Slawsam
v. Railr0ad‘ C0., .107 U. S. 652, :2 :Sup. Ct. Rep. 663; Wollcnsak v.·Rci—
Jwr, 115fU. S. 96, 5. Sup. Gt. Rep. 1137, and ininumerous cases at xcir-
  Z   ,:l.r' " _,  ,, l·" y]
·~ ` The method of putting up blankets, covered by this patent, is but a
new use rof-an old and wellknownydevice, incommon use and well, and