Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/313

 298 FBDEEAL EEPOETEE. �It is insisted, however, on the part of the defendant, that the Parshall patent is void, so far as the sixth claim now under consideration is involved, on the ground that the combination eovered thereby is a combination of parts already well known, producing no new resuit, and requiring no invention, but only mechanical skill, in its adaptation, and t'herefore not patentable ; and to support this proposition counsel cite and urge the rule as laid down in the supreme court in the case of Heber v. Van Normer, 20 Wall. 368, in the words : �"It must be conceded that a new combination, if it produces new and use- ful results, is patentable, althougb all the constituants of the combination were well known and in common use before the combination was made; but the resuit must be a product of the combination, and not a mere aggregate of several results, each the complete product of one of the combined elements. Combined results are not necessarily a novel resuit, nor are they an old resuit obtained in a new and improved manner. Thereby bringing old devices iato juxtaposition and there allowing each to work out its own pfPect without the production of something novel, is not invention. No one, by bringing together several old devices without producing a new and useful resuit, the joint pro- duct of the elements of the combination and something more than an aggre- gate, of old results, ean acquire a right to prevent others from using the same devices, either singly or in other combinations ; or, even if a new and useful resUlt is obtained, can prevent others from using some of the devices, omit- ting others, in the combination." �It is not.always easy, in one's own mind, to draw distinctly the line ■cyhich, in the application of a general, rule like this, no matter how clearly its meaning may be apprehended, separates what is here called the exercise of that invention entitled to th& protection of a patent, and exercise of mere mechanical skill in readaptations, which are not. Still more difficult is it, in the application of the rule to the circumstances of a particular case, to point out and state distinctly to others, so as to clearly convey one's meaning, the reasons which deterraine the conclusion reached, without, at least, reference to drawings and diagrams, and minute and detailed rehearsals, of the various parts of the machine or device, their relation to each other, their mode of operation, and comparison with others, which wpuld show the exact state of the art at a particular date. That dif- ficulty is eucountered to some extent in, the present instance.; 80 far, at least, as the attempt should be made toenumerate any new results attained by the combination and eovered by the sixth claim of the Parshall patent, other than those which are separate but aggregated results of the several well-known parts or elements that constitute the combination. But what is presented by the combina- tion, as it seems to me, is this : A lubricator, in which the breakage ��� �