Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/611

 HOE V. COTTRBLL. 603 �is to ascertain whetiier novelty and utility existed. It is true that these requisites may resuit from mere meehanical skill, and a new and useful ebmbination may be formed by the mere meehanical addition of an old member to an old set of members. But whan a device bas a new mode of operation, which accomplishes beneficiai resulta, "courts look with favor upon it," and are not exacting as to the degree of inventive skill -wbich was required to produce the new resuit. There must be some, but a little will sufSce. Furbresh v. Cook, 2 Fisher, 668; Middletown Tool Company v. Jvdd, 3 Fisher, lii; Stimpson v. Woodman, 10 Wall. 117. �The facts that in the multiplicity of printing press mechan- ism this combination had not been bit upon, and that when it was introduced its utility was universally recognized, and that it is plain that in order to make the combination some changes were neeessary in any machine or drawing which has been shown, satisfy me that to produce this resuit required changes which the mere skill of the skilled mechanic would not suggest, and that the work was practically more difficult than now seems to the theorist to bave been neeessary. �The defendants next insist that the patent is void because the patentee, in the body of his specification, states that his invention consisted in the combination with the receiving cyl- inder, provided with grippers and cords or tapes, of the sheet flyers; whereas, a new element is introduced into the claim, viz. : "an impression cylinder without tapes." �This claim was introduced into the claim by amendment after the application bad been rejected, and the correspond- ing amendment was not made in the statetnent of the inven- tion in the body of the specification. It is admitted by the defendants' expert to be true, "that the combination recited in the third claim is ail ehown in the drawings and is de- scribed in the specififiation, as to its principles of construction and mode of operation, but it is equally true that it is no- where described, except in the claim, as one of the parts of invention of the patentee." It would not be in accordanoe ■with the principlea of construction which have heretof ore been ��� �