on that subject, and therefore this case is referred to. It is extremely difficult for a mechanic to understand this doctrine as communicated by the decision, especially in view of the illustrations given by the court of the things constituting in its opinion true and patentable combinations. In reference to the combined pencil and eraser the Court says: "The handle for the pencil does not create or aid the handle for the eraser. The handle for the eraser does not create or aid the handle for the pencil. Each has and each requires a handle the same as it had and required without reference to what is at the other end of the instrument, and the operation of the handle of and for each is precisely the same, whether the new article is or is not at the other end of it."

To the mechanic the above statement appears to be a mechanical mistake, because there was but one handle for the two end devices (lead and eraser), the handle being reversible in the hand of the user; and, because, if the statement had been true, the movement of the holder and pencil lead could not possibly have moved. the eraser, and the movement of the same handle (or holder) and eraser could not possibly have moved the pencil lead; whereas it was a matter of visual perception that the movement of the one handle or holder carried with it both the lead and the eraser in every one of its movements, and did this because the three were immovably connected and combined together so as to form a single compound implement.

As an illustration of a patentable combination contrasted with the so-called "aggregation of separate elements" contained in the combined pencil and eraser, the court referred to a stem-winding watch, which,

strangely, is in precisely the same category with the combined pencil and eraser. Of this watch the Court

says:

"The office of the stem is to hold the watch, or hang the chain to the watch; the office of the key is to wind it. When the stem is made the key, the joint duty of holding the chain and winding the watch is performed by the same instrument. A double effect is produced or a double duty performed by the combined result. In these [among them the stem-winding watch] and numerous like cases the parts co-operate in producing the final effect, sometimes simultaneously, sometimes successively. The result comes from the combined effect of the several parts, not simply from the separate action of each, and is, therefore, patentable."

Now, when we endeavor to understand the distinction which the court attempted to elucidate between an unpatentable aggregation and a patentable combination, we are confronted with the following facts: When the watch is in the pocket or is hanging from the chain, the chain is operating through the stem, either to secure the watch or to hold it, but the winding mechanism connected with the stem is then temporarily inoperative; and when the combined pencil is used to erase, the rubber is operated through the holder or handle but the pencil lead (although held by the pencil holder) is then temporarily inoperative: When the winding mechanism of the watch is being operated by the stem, the chain is not operating (as the watch during the winding must necessarily be held firmly by the hand) and the chain is merely held by the stem ready for operation when required; and when the pencil lead is operated by the holder, the rubber eraser is not operating and is merely

held by that holder. The chain on the watch does not affect in any manner the operation of the winding mechanism, nor does the latter in any manner affect the operation of the former; so also with the combined pencil, the eraser does not affect the operation of the pencil lead, nor does the latter affect the operation of the former.

The Court said, "When the lead is used, it performs the same operation and in the same manner as it would do if there were no rubber at the other end of the pencil;" so with the watch, when the winding mechanism is used it performs the same operation and in the same manner as it would if there was no chain hanging from the ring of the stem. The Court said further of the combined pencil, "When the rubber is used, it is in the same manner and performs the same duty as if the lead were not in the same pencil;" and in the watch we find that when the chain is used to hold the watch, it is in the same manner and performs the same duty as if the winding mechanism were not in the watch connected with the same stem that holds the chain. The stem in the stemwinding watch undoubtedly connects the chain and the winding mechanism so that the three are combined in one compound implement or machine; and in like manner the holder connects the lead and the rubber eraser so that these three are combined in one compound implement or machine. The stem of the watch undoubtedly does "a double duty," that of holding the chain so that it may operate when required and that of operating the winding mechanism so that it may be operated when required; and in like manner, the holder of the pencil does "a double duty," that of holding the rubber eraser so that it may be operated when required, and that of operating the pencil lead so that it may be operated when required.

66

1

If we take the view that it is the watch and not the chain that is held by the stem, the above comparison is equally correct, because, when the stem is operating to hold the watch, the winding mechanism is not being operated; and when the pencil holder operates the eraser, the lead is not being operated. On the other hand, when the stem is used to operate the winding mechanism the former is not operating to hold the watch (which is then of necessity held directly by the hand); and when the pencil holder is used to operate the lead, it is not used to operate the eraser.

If the stem winding mechanism, and chain or watch, constitute a patentable combination because the stem performs a duplex function, it is impossible for a mechanic to perceive why the pencil handle or holder, lead, and eraser, do not equally constitute a patentable combination because the handle or holder performs a duplex function; and if the former is a patentable combination, while the latter is an unpatentable aggregation, this conclusion is merely a matter of opinion.

§ 42. Result of Doctrine of Aggregations.

If this new doctrine of aggregation be sound, then a host of new and useful machines and implements which have been invented and patented are unpatentable aggregations. Thus every compound tool, however novel and useful, is an unpatentable aggregation. Take, for example, the common carpenter's hammer, with a striking face at one side of its helve or handle and a claw at the other side. Whenever it was produced it was a new and most useful invention in the common sense understanding of that term. It consists of the combination of the handle, striking head, and claw, in which the three are

so combined that the handle performs the duplex function of swinging the striking face for delivering a forcible blow, and of lever for operating the claw to draw a nail. According to the common sense view of a mechanic, the three are not only connected but are combined for operation; but according to the view of the court given in the Reckendorfer case "the parts claimed" (by the common sense mechanic) "to make a combination are distinct and disconnected" as a matter of law, and the tool as a whole is only an aggregation of separate elements;" and was not an invention.

66

Take again the case of a machine whose members move relatively to each other while operating. The old "speeder" or "fly-frame" for spinning cotton had a single row of spindles upon the spindle-rail at the front. of the frame, and all these spindles were driven by a single driving shaft through the intervention of suitable gearing. Davoll improved this machine by arranging a second row of spindles in the same machine upon the same spindle-rail, the second row being behind the first row and the spindles of the second row being opposite the spaces between the spindles of the first row. Both rows were driven by the same driving shaft. By the improvement only about half the floor space was required for the same number of spindles as with the single row machines; hence one double row machine did about the work of two single row machines, and did it more economically because, as there were about twice as many spindles in the same length of machine, one operator could attend to a larger number of spindles; and as but little additional gearing was required over that for the single row, there was a less loss in friction and less power was required than with the same number of spindles