words, it is designed to cover the combination of these various elements to form a brace-wrench.

The position assumed by the examiner, as set forth at length in his answer to the "reasons of appeal," viz., that the several parts thus grouped together constitute a mere aggregation, and not a patentable combination, is in the main beyond question. It is true that none of the references cited show any one wrench having the three features of a thumb-screw for clamping the movable jaw, a brace-stock, and cushions on the jaws; but it is equally true, as alleged by the examiner, that it is a matter of no consequence, so far as concerns the operation of the bit-stock, whether the movable jaw is fastened by a set-screw or by any other known means; and the substitution in this particular wrench of a set-screw for other well-known means of adjusting this jaw cannot be regarded as invention.

The same remarks would be applicable to the relation existing between the set-screw and the elastic cushions.

At first glance there might seem more room for question whether the examiner's position with reference to the relation existing between the bit-stock and the cushions is equally tenable. It is admitted by him that the cushions have never before been used on the jaws of bracewrenches; but he maintains that their function in this class of wrenches does not differ in any respect from their function in those classes in which they are found.

Applicant's counsel, however, insists that in this particular wrench they possess a peculiar function, which may be briefly explained, as follows: By reason of one jaw being fixed, it follows that the relation between it and the axis of the brace-stock is constant, and, accordingly, that the axis of motion of the stock will coincide with the center of the uut only when the nut is of a certain size. With all others the eccentricity will be equal to half the difference between them and their par ticular size. Now, if there were no compensating device, it is urged, whenever the wrench is applied to a nut of a size other than that indicated, the axis of the stock will necessarily travel around the axis of the nut. This would impair the efficiency of the tool, since, for manifest reasons, it is always desirable that the head of the bit-stock should be free from aberration. But it is claimed that the cushions on the faces of the jaws, by reason of their elasticity, constitute a compensating device, whereby the eccentricity between the axis of the stock and the center of the nut is so far overcome that the head of the stock may be kept directly above the center of the nut, while the axis of the stock describes about the prolonged axis of the nut the outer surface of a cone the radius of whose base is approximately equal to the amount of the eccentricity to be obviated.

Theoretically, if the degree of eccentricity were small, this might be the case; but it is believed, from an inspection of both drawing and model, that this result would follow only in those cases where the eccen

tricity is so very small as to be practically of no account; and that in those cases where the eccentricity is enough to render itself sensible as a disturbing element, the compensation effected by the cushions, though theoretically not absolutely wanting, would be inappreciable, and consequently of no utility whatever.

Such being the case, I can but agree with the examiner that there is no such relation between the special stock used in the construction of applicant's wrench and the pads in the jaws as to constitute their assemblage in one common tool a patentable combination.

There is a fundamental difference between combination-i. e., a union in which the several parts so act upon or with each other as to modify the independent action of each-and mere aggregation, or the union of parts which have no such mutual relation. In the latter there might be in volved nothing but judgment and good taste. The former implies and presupposes the exercise of that faculty which we call invention.

In the present case I find only the grouping of various devices which are all old in wrenches, and which, though never before assembled in one tool, are brought together in such a manner as not to have their separate functions modified either by their juxtaposition or by their simultaneous action.

Under such circumstances I deem that the references which show the separate elements are pertinent, and that it is unnecessary to attempt to show that these various elements have never been grouped before.

The decision of the Examiners-in-Chief rejecting the application is accordingly affirmed.

CHARLES FRAMPTON.

Extension.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT GRANTED TO CHARLES FRAMPTON, APRIL 20, 1858, FOR IMPROVEMENT IN BURNISHERS.

(Decided April 19, 1872.)

Question of the novelty of the invention at the time of the original grant. LEGGETT, Commissioner:

The subject of the invention for which the patent was granted was a burnisher for threading sheet-metal jar-caps, and consisted of a burnisher with two or more rounded grooves and three or more rounded ribs. This instrument has decided advantages over the single-pointed burnisher. It works more rapidly, is not so liable to cut the metal, and better holds the metal upon the screw-spindle while the thread is properly formed.

6 С Р

Of the usefulness of the instrument there can be no reasonable.question, but of its novelty at the time of the original application there is considerable room for doubt. The English patent of Beltzung, No. 14,059, issued in 1852, six years prior to the date of the patent now sought to be extended, contains language which seems to describe exactly the same thing. In describing a tool which he used for the same purpose, after telling how he makes the plain cap, he says that he threads them "by placing them on a screwed mandrel in a lathe and pressing the thin metal into the thread of the screw by the application of a serrated tool, or burnisher, or milling tool." This describes the invention of the applicant and its use as well as applicant has done in his specification.

I must conclude that if the examiner had seen Beltzung's patent at the time he examined the original application the patent would never have been granted.

The extension is refused.

A. B. SMITH.-EX PARTE.

APPEAL FROM THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS-IN-CHIEF IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ABIA B. SMITH FOR LETTERS PATENT FOR IMPROVEMENT IN PLOWS.

(Decided April 24, 1872.)

Combination claims.

Where two parts of a device coact to produce a useful result, they should not be separated for the purpose of rejection. A legitimate combination must be met as such or the claim admitted.

To dissect a claim and reject it piecemeal is not admissible.

LEGGETT, Commissioner:

The invention claimed in this case is for the double purpose of preventing the losing of the key that holds the standard and beam of a plow together, and of strengthening the beam at its point of greatest weakness.

The device consists of a notched key to pass through the standard and a wedged-shape plate having a slot to receive the standard, the slot being considerably longer than the width of the standard. The slotted plate is then dropped over the upper end of the standard, and so adjusted as to bring the thinnest end of the wedge under the keyhole, when the notched key or gib is inserted, and the wedge-plate driven under it firmly, and then fastened to the beam by a screw.

The application was rejected by a reference to Fowler's patent of March 26, 1867, which it was thought showed the wedge-shaped slotted

plate, and to various classes of machinery for the notched key. The key is not separately claimed, neither is the slotted plate, and if they coact to produce a useful result, they should not be separated for the purpose of rejection. A legitimate combination should be met as such or not at all. The practice of dissecting a machine and rejecting it by piecemeal is without the sanction of either reason or law. Under such practice the Office might very soon close its doors, for the lever, the inclined plane, and the pulley are all very old and very well known, and might soon become sufficient references for every possible mechanical device; but in this case applicant's invention is not met even by the fragmentary mode in which it was examined. The wedge in Fowler's patent is a fork driven under a pin in the standard for the purpose of regulating the pitch of the plow-point and the draught of the plow. It has no other use, and is not designed or adapted to serve the end sought by the applicant. It has no influence whatever in retaining the key in its place more than the beam would have without the plate. It resembles the plate in this case in being wedge-shaped, and in being fastened to the beam with a screw, but in no other respect. The key, when considered by itself, has no element of novelty, and the applicant sets up no claim to novelty in either the plate or key. His claim is for a novel combination of the two in such manner as to secure a single and desirable end. It is well known that the alternating strain and relaxation upon the beam of a plow while at work has a very troublesome tendency to loosen the pin that retains the standard and beam in their proper relative positions. If the pin drops from its place the plow is in danger of being seriously damaged. To obviate this danger and trouble is the sole end of the applicant's invention; and it was no part of the object of Fowler's invention; neither would or could his invention accomplish such purpose.

The key and slotted plate in applicant's device clearly coact in secur. ing this end, and seem to be admirably adapted to the purpose. The notched key could not be successfully used except with a plate substantially in the form described, and the plate would be worthless for the desired purpose except with the notched key. When acting together the end is attained. Hence the combination is legitimate, and is not answered by references that apply only to the parts when separated from each other.

The decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed.

D. E. BEADLE AND G. W. PAYNE.

Extension.

APPLICATION FOR THE EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT FOR IMPROVEMENT IN COTTON-GINS, GRANTED TO J. N. WILSON AND G. W. PAYNE, APRIL 27, 1858.

(Decided April 24, 1872.)

Application for extension of joint patent, by whom made-Proof of joint invention.

P. having refused within the time required by law to join the administratrix of W.'s estate in an application for the extension of a patent granted to him and W. as joint inventors, but having subsequently ratified the act of the administratrix in filing an application over her own name, which application was duly advertised: Held, that the case might be entertained the same as if P. had originally joined in the petition. As to whether one of two or more joint inventors may be admitted to file and prosecute an application for the extension of a patent granted them without joining the others with him: quære.

An informal protest by P., containing an averment of sole invention by himself, is insufficient to destroy the presumption in favor of the validity of the patent created by the oath of joint invention which accompanied the original application. DUNCAN, Acting Commissioner :

This application, as first filed, was signed only by Mrs. Beadle, the administratrix of the estate of Wilson, deceased, while Payne, the other joint patentee, entered an informal protest to the grant of the extension, alleging in his letter to the Office that the improvements covered by the patent were invented by himself, and were not the joint invention of himself and Wilson, as had been stated under oath in the original application for the patent.

It was contended by Mrs. Beadle's counsel that, on account of the tenancy in common by which the patent was held, it was perfectly competent for either one of the owners to make application for and to receive an extension of the patent; and, in order that his client might not be deprived of the benefit of this doctrine, if the Office should upon consideration regard it tenable, it was decided to advertise the application in the usual way, and reserve the question as to its sufficiency for adjudication on the day of hearing.

In taking testimony Mrs. Beadle has sought to show by her witnesses that neither Payne, nor Payne and Wilson jointly, made the invention, but that it originated solely with Wilson.

Payne and the representative of Wilson's estate have now apparently compromised their differences, and Payne withdraws his oppo. sition, and ratifies the act of Mrs. Beadle in making application for the extension, his petition and statement of account being received only seven days before the expiration of the term of the patent.