In Brown v. Duchesne (1856) 60 U.S. 183, the Supreme Court, referring to the patent statutes, said that these acts of Congress do not, and were not intended to, operate beyond the limits of the United States. (Id. at 195.) The Court also explained the guaranteed reward from domestic markets: the patent laws secure to the inventor a just remuneration from those who derive a profit or advantage, within the United States, from his genius and mental labors. (Id.); The Supreme Court said: "The general words used in the clause . . . taken by themselves, and literally construed, without regard to the object in view, would seem to sanction the claim of the plaintiff. But this mode of expounding a statute has never been adopted by any enlightened tribunal - because it is evident that in many cases it would defeat the object which the Legislature intended to accomplish. And it is well settled that, in interpreting a statute, the courtwill not look merely to a particular clause in which general words may be used, but will take in connection with it the whole statute . . . and the objects and policy of the law. . . ." Chief Justice Taney wrote: this court has always held that an inventor has no right of property in his invention, upon which he can maintain a suit, unless he obtains a patent for it, according to the Acts of Congress." Chief Justice Taney also said: "It is well settled that, in interpreting a statute, the court will not look merely to a particular clause in which general words may be used, but will take in connection with it the whole statute or statutes on the same subject and the objects and policy of the law, as indicated by its various provisions, and give to it such a construction as will carry into execution the will of the Legislature, as thus ascertained, according to its true intent and meaning."