Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/323

 308 FEDERAL REPORTER. �S. c. 11 Otto, 486. While language may be found in GUI v. Wells, 22 Wall. 1, and a few other cases, which, standing alone, might justify a belief that where a general combination embraees minor, subordinate combinations, not claimed in the original patent, a sub- bequent introduction of claims for the latter, is invalid. Such a con- clusion, however, cannot be reconciled with -what bas been decided elsewhere, both beiore and since: Henry v. Nelson, 12 0. G. 753; Ker- osene Lamp Co. v. Littell, 13 0. G. 1009; Stevens v. Pritchard, 10 0. G. 505; Brown v. Selby, 23 Wall. 181; Seymour v. Morgan, 11 Wall. 544; Pearl v. Ocean Mills, 11 0. G. 4; Christman v. Ramsey, 17 0. G. 95; Sussell v. Spaeth, 14 0. G. 274. The patent, whether a reissue or an original, is entitled to a presumption in its favor: Railroad Co. v. Stimpson, 14 Pet. 448; Stevens v. Pritchard, 10 0. G. 505; Rossner v. Anness, 13 0. G. 870; Smith v. Goodyear, 5 0. G. 585. To justify the rejection of a patent or its claims, therefore, on the allegation of "new matter" it must clearly appear that such mat- ter has been introduced. A careful examination of the originals and reissues involved in this case has not satiafied us that "new matter" bas been introduced. �These patents are, principally, for new combinations. A majority of patents granted in modern times, are for such inventions; and they are none the less entitled to protection, and none the less valuable, on this aocount. A new machine, or a new manufacture is thus pro- duced, whereby new and useful results are obtained. Such a machine is infringed whenever another employa substantially the same com- bination, in plan and elements, operating in the same manner and producing substantially the same resuit. The doctrine of equiv- alents, with slight modification, applies with as much force to such an invention as to any other: Gould v. Beese, 15 Wall. 192; Seymour V. Osborne, 11 Wall. 556; Gill v. Wells, 22 Wall. 14, 15. Where, however, there is a difference, not in form simply, but in substance, — a difference in plan or combination, — in short, a difference in inven- tion, of course, the one machine will not infringe the other. The old elements from which one individual has drawn are open to all, It is the peculiar combination which one has effected that another shall not copy. It is the substance of the combination, however, and not the form, that is to be regarded. If the same plan, and substantially the same means of carrying it out, be employed, it is but copying. �That the plaintiff's press (considered as an entire machine) is the resuit of a new plan and new combination; that invention was neces- sary to produce it, and that great benefit has resulted from its pro- ��� �