Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/407

 TALE LOCK MANUP'g CO, V. NOR'AlCH NAT. BANK. 395 �increased efficiency, this eombined result arises merely from bringing two old devices into juxtaposition; that each device wo^ks out its own effect, and nothing more, and that the fruit of the union is no new resuit, but tWo old resulta. There is, therefore, no combination, but simply an aggregation. If the defendant is right in its premises, and no different force or effect or resuit is produced from the union of the several parts tban from that given by the several parts, {Reckendorfer V. Faber, 92 U. S. 347,) and if the eombined locks produce no other resuit upon the boit than the sum of the two old results, then the defendant's conclusion is correct. In my opinion a new resuit is prodaced by the union. The reSult of ail safe-lock mechanism is capacity of the boit to resist violence under varied circum'stances of danger. The resuit of the union of time locks and combination mechanism, when in operation during the night season, is not merely the sum of capacity of r'esistance imparted by the two mechanisms, but because each mechanism strengthens the weakness of the other, and by its positive adyantages fills up the deficieneies of the other. The resuit is a produot of greater efficiency than is f airly represented by the sum of the two results. The re- suit is not a combination of two results, but a resuit froui the eombined action of two locks upon the boit work, each acting independently, but the action of each supplying the laek of the other. On the other hand, during the day-time, when the use of a time lock would be impossible, the safe is guarded by the combination lock, and the time lock is called into action only when its activity is needed. Thus the expense of two doors or of two boit works is avoided, and the patentee gave to the public a safe door guarded by a combination of two different kinds of mechanism. The System as applied to one door was new, and produced a resultant efficiency which is different in kind from the efSciency of either one of the o!d devices when acting alone. �The next point in'the defence is lack of invention. This is a theoretical defence, sustained by the opinions of able and iugenious men, who had not made safe locks when Sar- gent was constriictihg his device. The facts in the hiitory' ��� �