While a combination is a union of ele ments which may be partly new, or wholly old or wholly new, the combination is a means distinct from its constituent elements, any of which, if new and patentable, may be covered by separate claims in the same pat ent as the combination. A combination which produces by the co-operation of its constituents the result specified in the man ner specified is a true mechanical devise and a valid combination; Leeds & C. Co. v. Mach. Co., 213 U. S. 301, 29 Sup. Ct. 495, 53 L. Ed. 805.
Inventions pertaining to machines may be divided into four classes : 1. Where the in vention embraces the entire machine; 2. Where it embraces one or more of the ele ments of the machine only, as the coulter of a plough; 3. Where the invention embraces both a new element and a new combination of old elements ; 4. Where all the elements of the machine are old and the invention consists in a new combination. Almost all of the modern machines are of the fourth class ; Union Sugar Refinery v. Matthiesson, 3 Cliff. 639, Fed. Cas. No. 14,399.
A nialrufacture is an instrument created by the exercise of mechanical forces and de signed for the production of mechanical ef fects, but not capable, when set in motion, of attaining, by its own operation, to any predetermined results. It receives its rule of action from the external source which furnishes its motive power. A manufacture requires the constant guidance and control of some separate intelligent agent; a ma chine operates under the direction of that intelligence with which it was endowed by its inventor when he imposed on it its struc tural law. The parts of a machine, consid ered separately from the machine itself, all kinds of tools and fabrics, and every other vendible substance, which is neither a com plete machine nor produced by the mere union of ingredients, is included under the title "manufacture" ; Rob. Pat. § 182. An article of ornament may be a manufacture; Simpson v. Davis, 20 Blatch. 413, 12 Fed. 144 ; and a bond and coupon register in the form of a book ; Munson v. New York, 3 Fed. 338 ; and a wooden pavement ; 2 Webst. 126.
A manufacture, if new in itself, may be patentable whether the process or apparatus by which' it is produced be new or not; Dra per v. Hudson, Holmes 208, Fed. Cas. No. 4,069. A manufacture may be an invention distinct from the mode of producing it ; Unit ed Nickel Co. v. Pendleton, 21 Blatch. 226, 15
Fed. 739. Making an old article by a new pro cess or apparatus is not making a new man ufacture; McKloskey v. Du Bois, 8 Fed. 710; a new process producing a new manufacture may involve two separate inventive acts ; Tucker v. Dana, 7 Fed. 213. A new form of an old article may be a new manufacture ; 25 0. G. 601; but to perceive a hitherto un known quality in an existing substance is not the invention of a new substance ; An soaia B. & C. Co. v. Supply Co., 32 Fed. 81. Although a new process for producing an article is patentable, the product itself can not be patented, if it is old; Cochrane v. Badische Anilin & Soda Fabrik, 111 U. S. 293, 4 Sup. Ct. 455, 28 L. Ed. 433.
A composition of matter is a substance composed of two or more different substanc es, without regard to form. A design is an ornamental object as specified in R. S. § 4929.
Invention, what constitutes. The general rule is that, wherever invention has been ex ercised, there will be found the subject-mat ter of a patent; Poppenhusen v. Falke, 5 Blatch. 46, Fed. Cas. 11,280.
The constitution provides for the grant to inventors of the exclusive right to the re spective "discoveries," while R. S. § 4884, uses "inventions and discoveries."' Although the word "discovery" is used as entitling the discoverer to a patent, still, every discovery is not a patentable Invention. The discoverer of A. mere philOsophical prin ciple, or abstract theory, or elementary truth of science, cannot obtain a patent for the same, unless he applies it to some directly useful purpose. The patent can only be for such a principle, theory, or truth reduced to practice and embodied in a particular struc ture or combination of parts; Clark Thread Co. v. Linen Co., 140 U. S. 481, 11 Sup. Ct. 846, 35 L. Ed. 521; nor can there be a patent for a function or for an effect only, but for an effect produced in a given manner or by given means ; Piper v. Brown, 1 Holmes 20, Fed. Cas. No. 11,180 ; Tilghman v. Werk, 2 Fish. 229, Fed. Cas. No. 14,046 ; or by a par ticular operation; Stone v. Sprague, 1 Sto. 270, Fed. Cas. No. 13,487; O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. (U. S.) 62, 14 L. Ed. 601; but a patent covers the means employed to effect results; Miller v. Mfg. Co., 151 U. S. 186, 14 Sup. Ct. 310, 38 L. Ed. 121.