NOVELTY IN PATENTS. 617 



whatever is essential to that object, independent of the mere form and 

 proportions of the thing used for the purpose, may generally, if not 

 universally, be considered as the principle of the invention." 



The third principle above enumerated, that a new combination is a 

 patentable novelty, is well elucidated in the case of Barrett vs. Hull, 

 1 Mass., 474. This was a case for the infringement of a patent granted 

 for " a new and useful improvement, being a mode of dyeing and fin- 

 ishing all kinds of silk-woven goods." Judge Story said : " A patent 

 may be for a new combination of machines to produce certain effects ; 

 and this whether the machines constituting the combination be new or 

 old." And in Whitney vs. Emmett, 1 Baldwin, 311, also the patenta- 

 bility of a new combination was upheld. What the learned Judge said 

 is so good an epitome of all that has been said in the second part of 

 this paper, that I give it, although it is merely cumulative : 



" Novelty consists in producing a new substance, or an old one in a 

 new way, by new machinery, or a new combination of the parts of an 

 old one, operating in a peculiar, better, cheaper, or quicker method, a 

 new mechanical employment of principles already known." 



The rule in regard to new combinations, as above laid down, is 

 most just, for the most valuable inventions consist in the combination 

 of known mechanical powers. It makes no matter if some of the ele- 

 ments are old (McCormick vs. Talcott, 20 Howard, 405) ; nor even if 

 every part of such invention can be found in some form or other among 

 the many devices of human ingenuity. As was said in Pitts vs. Ed- 

 mond, 2 Fisher's Patent Cases, 55, " The man who unites these powers 

 and produces a new and important result to society is well denominated 

 a public benefactor." 



There is one important principle in regard to combinations which, 

 although not bearing directly upon the question of novelty, yet ought 

 to be remembered. Judge Story called attention to it in the preceding 

 case of Barrett vs. Hull : " It is no infringement," he said, " of the 

 patent to use any of the machines separately, if the whole combination 

 be not used, for in such case the thing patented is not the separate 

 machines, but the combination." 



With this quotation I end the discussion of the question of novelty 

 in patents. I have endeavored to make my answer as satisfactory as 

 the difficulties of the question would allow. I have for that purpose 

 viewed the subject from two standpoints of opposite natures and have 

 enumerated and discussed certain principles of general application 

 which were disclosed by this double observation. The work must at 

 the best, however, be incomplete, for, as Mr. Parsons says, " It is ob- 

 viously impossible to find precise and technical rules which always 

 answer the question." 



