all parts necessary to the action and combination specified might be said to enter into the mode of combining and arranging the elements of the combination, but need not be and ought not to be included in the combination claimed." Furbush v. Cook, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 669. If the objection that a claim does not recite all the devices that are required in an operative machine were sound, it would follow that many new sub-combinations of devices having members less than sufficient to accomplish by themselves a complete useful result would be unpatentable. Take the case of the Crompton loom, above referred to, what complete useful result can be accomplished by that combination, even with the wires. added, considered apart from the loom in which it is a combination subordinate to the loom as a whole, and therefore what is commonly known as a sub-combination? Its function in the loom is only to move the warp threads according to the design determined by the pattern chain; but the warp threads might be moved forever without accomplishing any complete useful purpose unless the sub-combination were used in connection with, among other devices, a shuttle and mechanism for throwing the shuttle through the shed that is opened and closed by the Crompton combination; so that the warp threads moved by that combination and the filling or weft thread carried by the shuttle may be combined to form cloth as the complete useful result.

The objection if sound also would prevent the granting of patents for a host of useful machines and implements which cannot accomplish a complete useful result until applied to others. Thus, a door lock is incapable of performing a complete useful result until it is applied to a door, and yet no mechanic would deny that the

members of a door lock constitute a patentable combination. If, also, the objection were sound, the frame of every machine and every bolt, nut, screw, shaft, and cogwheel would have to be recited in every claim, because if these be omitted in constructing the machine, the members recited in the claim could neither be held in their operative positions nor operated practically, and the detached members lying upon a floor would amount only to an aggregation of those members. The objection therefore is absurd, the fact being that when a patentee states "I claim the combination of" such and such devices the use of the term combination implies whatever combining mechanism is required to enable the recited members or devices to operate in concert substantially as described in the descriptive part of the specification. Moreover, when a new sub-combination exists in an operative machine, the fact that the machine as a whole will operate is conclusive evidence that the sub-combination forming part of the machine is operative, however few its members may be as compared with the entire number of members of which the machine as a whole is composed. The sub-combination is therefore useful and operative to make the complete machine of which it forms part; and in many cases it may be equally useful and operative to form a part of other machines in which it can be used with advantage; and if it be new and useful and not within the exceptions mentioned in § 6, the inventor has a right to it wherever it may be used.

§ 48. Rule as to Combination Claims.

The proper rule as to claims to combinations appears to be as follows, viz:

An inventor is in every case entitled to a claim commensurate with his invention, and the combinations invented by him may be generic, specific, peculiar, or particular according to the circumstances of each case.

§ 49. Generic Combination.

If the inventor be the first who combined devices of two or more distinct genera to produce a useful result, he is entitled to a claim that will secure to him the use of the combination of those genera, without restriction to any particular species of those genera, and without recital in his claim or restriction to the peculiarities of the combining mechanism by which he has combined the devices. The invention then consists of the generic combination of the two or more devices, and the claim is a generic claim with the legal effect that a subsequent new combination of particular species of the same genera of devices is included in the purview of the generic claim notwithstanding the fact that the subsequent new combination has an improved mode of operation, or accomplishes an additional function to that effected by the generic combination first made.

§ 50. Specific Combination.

If the generic combination be old, and a subsequent inventor be the first to combine two or more species of the same genera of devices in such manner that a new collective mode of operation is attained which is not attained by the old generic combination made by the first inventor (as was the case with the combination of the Crompton loom and with the harvester of Seymour), such subsequent inventor is entitled to a claim that will

secure to him the use of the combination of those species having the mode of operation described in the narrative part of the specification, without recital in the claim of, or restriction to the peculiarities of the combining mechanism by which he has combined his species of devices. The invention then consists of the combination of two or more specific devices, and the claim is a specific one, which while it does not include all the genera of devices of which the claimed devices are species, has the legal effect that a subsequent new combination of other species of the same genera, which new subsequent combination has the improved mode of operation incident to the patented specific combination, even though accomplishing an additional function thereto or attended with a new mode of operation as a whole, is included in the purview of the specific claim.

§ 51. Peculiar Combination.

If the generic combination be old and an inventor be the first to combine the same genera of the generic combination by means of combining mechanism differing from that previously used with the old generic combination, but attended with a new mode of operation, he is entitled to a claim that will secure to him the use of the combination of the genera by means of the peculiar combining mechanism used by him, and the combination is distinguished not only by the character of the generic devices but also by the peculiar mode of operation of the new combining mechanism by which the generic devices are combined. The claim should in such case recite not only the principal generic devices, but should also recite the combining mechanism either by name or by mention of the new mode of operation produced by it. In such

case the invention consists of the peculiar combination of two or more generic devices, and the claim is a peculiar one, which while it does not include the old generic combination of the principal devices nor new combinations of those generic devices by means of combining mechanism operating as the combining mechanism of the old generic combination did, has the legal effect of including within its purview subsequent new peculiar combinations having combining mechanism which produces substantially the same mode of operation as the combining mechanism of the claimed peculiar combination does, even though improved methods of operation be attained by the new subsequent combination.

§ 52. Particular Combination.

This last rule is sound with reference to new combinations of specific devices by means of particular combining mechanism not previously used in producing the combination of the same species of devices; and in such case the claimed combination is distinguished by the combined characteristics of the species of devices that are combined and of the combining mechanism. The claim in this case is a particularly restricted one, which should recite not only the principal specific devices, but should recite also the particular combining mechanism either by name or by mention of the particular mode of operation produced by it; and the claim is a particular one. Such a claim is generally very restricted in its purview; but if new and productive of a new collective mode of operation, is nevertheless entitled to include in its purview equivalents for the various devices required by its language.