Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/62

 MCKESSON V. CABNSIO'E. 47 �tical success, inrthe mould shpwttiu the ^rawings of the patenti^and. that the specification is misleading.in saying bo. Bni m such de- fenoe is set up in the answer, nor does the answer allegia any frauda- ient or deceptiye intention, nor is any sueh proved, nor is it shown that Caubape did not believe that he oould mould pills in the mouldi nor that he had not donc so. Moreover, the second claim is gpod, even if the mould will not form the pill, provided it will act as a holder for the pill. �It is also objected that there is no combination. between the; eomb^ bar and needles and the pill-holders, but only an aggregation of patts. This is an erroneous view. The pill-holder holds the pill wlule the needle carried by the comb-bar is being thrust into the piQ. The concert of action takes place when the needle enters the pill, and, although such concert of action continues only from the titoe the needle enters the pill until the pill is removed by thq needle» from the holder, yet the combination made by such concert of action conT tinues as long as it needs to continue j, a-nd the concert of action (iould not exist at all, so as to impale the pill on the needle, if the pill were not carried by the holder and the needle were not carried by the oOmb-bar. So, when the needle enters the pill, there is a co%binftr tion or concert of ; action between the comb-bar and ueedle and the holder carrying the pill. t.;i �It is also objected that the specification names glycerine;. as a substance to be used for coating, and that glycerine is ui)t uped as a coating and will not act as such.' This is immaterial, a»d aside from the invention. No such defence is set up in the answer, 'The specification refers to any coating solution which will coat. The word "glycerine" may be rejected as surplusage. Neither one of the olaims bas any reference to any particular coating solution, nor bas any specifie coating solution anyj oonniBetion with the aubjeot-matter of either of the claims, �It is also objected that the i specification sets, ont with stating the invention to be a combination of the holder, the comb-bar, the clamp, and the stripper; and that in the claims there are.two com- binations : (1) tho comb!-bair,r tto elamp, and the stripper; and (2) the moulds and the comb-bar; and that there is no daim for a com- bination of all four elem&nts. A combination of all four is an imposa sible combination. The holder never acts when the other three are acting. The clamp' takes the place of "the moulds, A," when the stripper and the> comb-bar ate brougUt iiit0;»ctior^. . The claiiais.mup^ ��� �