AT

WILLIAM HAILES and John G. Treadwell, Admrs. of Ellen Treadwell, Deceased, Appts,

v.

JASPER VAN WORMER et al.

(See S. C., 20 Wall., 853-375.) When new combination patentable-novel result old devices when not patentable. 1. A new combination, if it produces new and useful results, is patentable, though all the constitBents of the combinations were well known and in common use before the combination was made.

2. But the result must be a product of the combination, and not a mere aggregate of several results, each the complete product of one of the combined elements.

8. Combined results are not necessarily a novel result, nor are they an old result obtained in a new and improved manner. Merely bringing old devices Into juxtaposition, and there allowing each to work out Its own effect without the production of something novel, is not invention.

4. No one, by bringing together several old devices without producing a new and useful result, the joint product of the elements of the combination and something more than an aggregate of old results, can acquire a right to prevent others from using the same devices, either singly or in other combinations; nor, even if a new and useful result is obtained, prevent others from using some of the devices, omitting others, in combination.

5. A well known device applied to stoves long before the patert for it was granted, is not invention. [No. 125.]

Argued Dec. 1, 2, 1873. Decided Jan. 5, 1874

A

PPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York.

This action was brought in the court below by the appellants against the appellees, for the alleged infringement of two patents for improvements in stoves. The first is a re-issue, dated Feb. 3, 1863 (Exhibit B), granted on the surrender of an original, dated May 7, 1861. The second was granted August 11, 1863 (Exhibit C).

The respondents deny, as to both patents, the novelty and patentability of the matters claimed, and refer to numerous prior patents, and to persons having knowledge of the prior use of stoves, involving all the essential features of the said alleged improvements.

They also deny the charge of infringement. The stoves described in the two patents at issue, and the one claimed to infringe, belong

Note.-Patentability of combinations-see notes, 37 L. ed. U. &. 553; 88 L. ed. U. 8. 138; 40 L ed. U. 8. 1025.

to the class of stoves known as base-burners or self-feeders; so termed because they are provided with a tubular magazine or reservoir of coal, located above the fire-pot and containing a considerable charge of coal introduced through the upper end, which is then closed with a cover. The lower end of this feeder is open, and as the coal is consumed, the fire-pot is replenished, by gravity, from the feeder or reservoir, and the combustion takes place in the fire-pot, below the lower end of the said feeder or reservoir.

The following diagrams and description refer to the patent "B:"