Scientific American Supplement, No. 1178, June 25, 1898 eBook

This eBook from the Gutenberg Project consists of approximately 102 pages of information about Scientific American Supplement, No. 1178, June 25, 1898.
the genus was old, and that the generic claim was invalid, while the specific claim would still be good.  The infringer of the specific claim may thus be held notwithstanding the generic claim becomes void.  But the inventor cannot claim his second species in his patent.  He can claim the genus, and he can claim one species under that genus, but all other species must be covered in separate patents.  It is even unwise to illustrate alternative species in a patent for, in case, of litigation, some one of the alternative species might prove to be old.  This would have the effect, of course, to destroy the generic claim, but it might possibly have the effect of damaging the specific claim if it should appear that the specific claim was after all merely for a modification as distinguished from a distinct species.  Were it not for the danger of broad generic claims being rendered void by discovered anticipations, there would be no need for claiming species, but in view of such possibility it is important to claim one species in the generic patent, and to protect alternative species by other patents.

COMBINATION AND SUB-COMBINATION.

A given machine capable of a given ultimate result having been invented, a claim may be drawn to cover the combination of elements comprised in the machine.  Such claim will cover the machine as a whole.  But, the fact being recognized that many machines are, after all, composed of a series of sub-machines, and that these sub-machines, in turn, are composed of certain combinations of elements, and that within these sub-machines there are still minor combinations of elements capable of producing useful mechanical results, and that the sub-machines, or some of the subordinate combinations of elements within the sub-machines, might be capable of utilization in other situations than that comprehended by the main machine, it becomes important that the inventor be protected regarding the sub-machines and the minor useful combinations.  Claims may be drawn for the combination constituting the main machine, other claims may be drawn for the combinations constituting the operative sub-machines, and claims may be drawn covering the minor useful combinations of elements found within the sub-machines.  Each claimed combination must be operative.  But secondary claims cannot be made for sub-machines or sub-combinations which are for divisional matter or matter which should be made the subject of separate patents.

MECHANICAL EQUIVALENTS.

Where an inventor produces a new mechanical device for the production of a certain result, he can often see in advance that various modifications of it can be made to bring about the same result, and even if he does not see it he may in the future find competitors getting at the result by a different construction.  He analyzes the competing structure, and determines that “it is the same thing only different,” and wonders what the legal doctrine of mechanical equivalents means, and asks if he is not entitled to the benefits of that doctrine, so that his patent may dominate the competing machine.

Copyrights
Project Gutenberg
Scientific American Supplement, No. 1178, June 25, 1898 from Project Gutenberg. Public domain.
Follow Us on Facebook