Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/604

 590 FEDERAL REPORTBR. �give the owner of the patent his actual invention, if such favorable construction can fairly be made. The state of the art shows that the placing a spring to actuate the tongue in the recess, r, at the side of the tongae, vras the distinctive feature of Bristol's invention, and was an improvement upon the Judd hook, in which "the spring was inserted in the bottom of a channel formed between the two cheeks of the shank, and eiiclosed between the two cheeks of the tongue." The rule of construction is clearly stated by Judge Shep- ley in Estabrook v. Dunbar, 10 0. G. 909. After saying that tech- nical claims are to be construed with reference to the state of the art 80 as to limit the patentee to, and give him the full beneiit of, the in- vention he bas made, the leamed judge says : �" The general terras and sometiraes special words in the claims must re- ceive such a construction as may enlarge or contract the scope of the claim, so as to uphold that invention, and only that invention, which the patentee has actually made and deseribed, wlien such construction is not absolutely incou- sistent \v;ith the language of the claim." �Under this rule, the flrst claim is for a tongue constructed with a recess in its aide, opening outward, combined with a coil spring which rests in such recess and operates between the body of the hook and the tongue. ^ �The defendants also insist that the claim, if so construed, is in- valid, because, if the invention consisted in a combination of a tongue having a peculiar recess with a spring, the form of the recess does not affect the spring, and consequently the claim is for a mere aggre- gation of parts. �There must be a combination of spring and tongue, and the spring must be placed where it can actuate the tongue. The old location was in a channel formed between the two cheeks of the tongue. The location was objectionable, not because the spring did not cause the tongue to snap easily, but because another location would be more «conomical and would keep the hook more free from dirt. The new combination was of spring and recessed tongae, the recess being so constrilcted that by means of the new location of the spring a new and beneficiai resuit was attained. It was not material whether the benefit was to the spring or not, but it is material that the benefit should be the resuit of the new combination. The combination in this case does not fall within the principie of Halles v. Van Wormer, 20 Wall. 353, which condemns a combination creating no new efiect as its resiilt. , : Without examining in detail all the objections which are urged in ��� �