attorney manifestly contemplated an active prosecution of the application and power to make amendments and alterations, with a view of facilitating such prosecution, and was not designed to authorize the attorney to interpose a bar to progress toward obtaining a patent for the invention or some part of it set forth in the specification and claim. This is the only sensible interpretation of such language as the inven tor employed, without holding it up to the light shed upon it by the rules and statute under which it was made, and with which the inventor is by law presumed to be acquainted; but with the aid of the Rules of Practice of the Office no other construction is permissible. As before suggested, the cancellation of all the claims in an application is in effect a formal abandonment of it; and this can only be affected by the direct act of the inventor himself, which act must be approved by the assignee, if the invention has been assigned. Rule 165 expressly provides that the inventor himself, or the assignee, in case the application has been assigned, shall sign the formal abandonment. Now Lasscell, when he gave his attorney power to prosecute the application and make alterations and amendments therein, clearly did so with the reservation that the latter should go no further in this direction than the rules of the Office permitted, and hence gave him no power to execute the paper which in effect is a formal abandonment of his application. The making of an amendment canceling all the claims in Lasscell's application is therefore an act beyond the scope of the authority conferred upon the attorney by the inventor, and hence the Examiner did right in refusing to enter such an amendment. The decision of the Examiner is approved and affirmed. EX PARTE HOLT. Decided April 26, 1884. 29 O. G., 171. 1. Applications for letters patent are to be divided only upon lines drawn between separable and distinct parts of the thing invented. No invention can be divided upon an imaginary line, one determined by a mere difference in words, as by the relative breadth of claims to identical subject-matter; that is, upon a distinction of scope, not of substance-of the mind, not of matter. Divisional applications which relate to the same machine or structure, and contain claims to the constituent parts thereof which interweave with each other, or overlap one another, are improper. 2. An interference cannot be declared with an improper divisional application. 3. When a person invents the subject-matter of a narrow claim upon a certain entity, in the same moment of time and as the same sense-concept, he invents that of a broader claim thereon; hence a second patent to him with claim to subjectmatter which comprehends the claim of his previous patent is void as being anticipated in such previous patent, aud so the allowance of applications with claims to specific devices, or "species," while an appplication containing a "generic" claim covering those species is in controversy or withheld, is condemned. 4. If properly divided out, it is permissible to claim in an application matter which is shown and described but not claimed in a patent to the same applicant, provided the application upon which the patent was granted was concurrently pending, as pointed out in e parte Derby (26 O. G., 1208); but where the subject-matter is one, integral, and indivisible the mere fact that the applications were simultaneously before the Office will not warrant the granting of more than one patent thereupon. 5. The case here on appeal is one in which there could be no proper division; but even in cases where there can be proper division, if the divisions, when put together, constitute an organized machine, depending for its operation as such upon each of the distinct and separate divisions, it seems only proper that all the divisions should be pending concurrently, and should issue simultaneously, analogous to divisions of a reissue, in order that through the interdependence of the parts, by withholding from patent until much later an essential part, or a sub-aggroupment of parts, or by patenting the separate parts or sub-aggroupments of parts, seriatim, at long intervals, the term of patent protection, of exclusive right to the machine, may not be extended, or seem to be extended, beyond that limited by law, and deprive the public of right to the machine or be a menance against such right, after the first patent has expired. The same considerations obtain with respect to process and product, machine and product, and machine and method. Of course, where the product can only be made by one process, the two are so linked together that the invention is one, and there can be no division; but where the product is capable of being effected by various methods, processes, or machines, and division is thus possible, where the prooess, or the machine would produce no other product, the method, process, or machine should not be allowed to go to patent before the product, and the product be subsequently patented, as in such case the public may seem to be barred from the use of the method or process, or of the machine, even after the patent upon the same has expired, for the reason that there cannot be such use without making the product. Proper division between process and product, divisions between machine and product, and between machine and method should issue simultaneously. If the patent for the process, or for the machine, issue first, a subsequent patent upon the product should be refused, and in the case of machine and method, if a patent on the machine issue first a subsequent patent on the method should be refused, all upon the ground that it would seem to extend the monopoly, and is thus against public policy. 6. When an application is once filed, be it a divisional or other original application, it presents a certain state of facts, and when examined on that state of facts the Patent Office has done all that is required, the applicant having received all that a single fee will cover. He may not shift from one state of facts to another and draw in extraneous matter, whether it be from an entirely independent source or from a divisional application. 7. The description of an invention by a specification alone is not now, as formerly, all sufficient; but the description must be supplemented by a specific and welldefined claim to the part, improvement, or combination which the inventor regards as his property. The aim, end, purpose of the specification under the present statute is to describe the inventiou sought to be covered by the patent, and the manner of making, constructing, and using the same. The aim, the end, the purpose of the claim is to point out particularly and distinctly define the invention to be secured to the individual. The claim is the measure of the patent, and the day has passed when the courts will search through the specification for information which it is the very office of the claim to impart. 8. Such expressions as "means" and "mechanisin" are generally objectionable, as being indefinite. They are objectionable as employed in this case. They are always objectionable if, by their use, the claim itself does not distinguish what is believed to be new. But it is not intended to intimate that any particular expression or form of words is always to be excluded from a claim-that, for example, such expressions as "means" and "mechanism" may never be employed. On the contrary, if these words coupled with the requisite words of qualification ever express the exact invention, or refer to merely adjunctive devices readily understood, they are not objectionable. Comprehensive terms and phrases to include mechanical equivalents are quite proper (see ex parte Demming, 26 O. G., 1207) if they are clear-that is, provided they distinctly express the invention and are warranted by the specification. 9. Every instrumentality or substance intended to be an element or ingredient of a claim must be directly brought in as such, not inferentially included, or only alluded to in naming some other. 10. It is to be observed that claims forming part of one case cannot be to alternative constructions--that is, alternative with other claims to constructions; in other words, which are modifications of constructions set up in other claims; nor may claims be in themselves alternative. 11. Each claim must be to a complete and operative combination in the direction of the invention. 12. In an original application matter not warranted by the case, as first filed, should not be designated by the term "new matter." The term "new matter" is employed in the statute and in the Rules of Practice only with reference to reissues. APPEAL from Primary Examiner. DUST-COLLECTOR. APPLICATION of Noah W. Holt, filed July 19, 1882. Messrs. Doubleday & Bliss for the applicant. STATEMENT OF THE CASE. Holt filed an application January 26, 1880, with two sheets of drawings (to which, subsequently, another sheet was added), describing the following invention in apparatus for collecting the dust from purifiers or from stones and other reducing mechanism in flouring-mills, viz: Within a large case having an inlet leading from the dust-flue of the purifier is a reel which fits closely within the case, but is capable of rotating freely therein. The reel is composed of two impervious heads and two concentric series of rods or bars connecting them. The reel is clothed with coarse or loosely-woven flannel, the same being wound from a rod or bar of one series to the adjoining rod or bar of the next, thus presenting a zigzag or indented surface. A suction-fan outside the case may be placed either at one end of the case or at one side of the same, or there may be a suction-fan at each end of the case. Where there is but one suction-fan and this is located at one end of the case, the reel has at that end a hollow trunnion by which passage of air is permitted from the interior of the reel to the fan. Where the suctionfan is located at one side, or where there are two suction-fans, one at each end of the case, the reel has both trunnions hollow for the passage of air from the interior; where the fan is at one side, there being suita ble ducts leading to it from the trunnions. By the action of the fan or fans a current of air is induced through the inlet leading from the dust flue of the purifier, inward through the clothing of the reel and out through the trunnion or trunnions, the dust with which the current is charged being deposited upon the outer surface of the clothing. Below the reel there is a trough containing a conveyer, and while the reel rotates, as each section or indentation comes over the trough, its upper salient angle is struck by one or more knockers and the accumulated dust is jarred off. After the dust has been jarred from the surface of the cloth, or before this, after a section containing dust is turned down, it is desirable that the dust shall not be subjected to the blast, and to this end the lower part of the reel clothing is cut off from the action of the fan, the housing of the reel being contracted about the reel on each side of the trough throughout the length of the reel, and a partition being suspended in contact with the inner series of rods or bars. This pendent partition may hang from a central shaft, where there is one, or, where there is none, from the trunnions. If the shaft is non rotating, the arms attaching the partition thereto may be fixed to it; otherwise the partition should hang loose upon the shaft, when its weight will keep it in proper position. The trough thus constitutes a still-air chamber, and the conveyer carries off the dust that falls into it. More ef fectively to cut off this still-air chamber from action of the fan the salient angles of the sections or outer rods are provided with longitudinal projecting strips of rubber or leather, which are pressed against the contracted portion of the housing when they come to that position, and thus act as packing. To apply these strips, the outer rods or bars are made double-that is, are composed of the fixed or cloth-supporting bar or rod and an exterior strip having the packing-strip set in, according to the well-known construction of weather-strips; and similar strips in annular form may be applied to the heads at or near their peripheries. The fan or fans and the reel are rotated by separate pulleys, the reel being driven more slowly than the fans by a belt from a pulley on the conveyer. The rods which connect the heads may be rollers, and instead of the reel revolving, the clothing may be made to revolve by rotating one or more of the rollers. In this case the knocker is actuated by projections on the conveyer which engaged successively with a projection on the knocker. The following were the original claims: 1. The continuous-moving convoluted cloth c, combined with the outer case A, having the inlet-passage a, the still-air chamber h, and a suction-fan connecting with the space inclosed by the cloth e, substantially as and for the purposes set forth. 2. The combination with the inner and outer bars, r aud r', supporting the moving convoluted cloth c, of the inner partition f, the outer housing A, contracted from a to d and from e' to e, and the still-air chamber h, substantially as described. 3. The rotating reel B, peripherally clothed with the convoluted cloth c, combined and arranged with the outer case A, suction-fau C, still-air space h, and a knocker to dislodge the dust from the cloth over the still-air space, substantially as described. 4. The knocker 8, combined with the still-air chamber h and outer bars r', supporting the convoluted cloth c, substantially as described. 5. The knockers, combined with the moving cloth c and worm i, and actuated by the projections j upon the worm, substantially as described. 6. In combination with the convoluted reel cloth c, and the reel-housing A, contracted to proximate the outer supporting reel-bars r', the flexible packing-strip t, secured to the bars r', substantially as described and for the purposes set forth. And the following disclaimer was filed: I do not broadly claim the combination of a still-air chamber with a moving dustcollecting cloth, nor the combination with such a chamber and cloth of a knocker to dislodge the dust from the cloth so that it will fall into the still-air chamber, these combinations having, as I am informed and so far as I am concerned, been first invented by Jonathan Mills. Other claims were from time to time substituted for the original claims, and at the present time the case is pending upon the following: 1. The combination of a stellated dust-separating reel rotating about a horizontal axis, a box underneath for catching the dust as it falls from the mouth of a vertical chamber thereof, and a knocker acting against a section over said dust-box, substantially as set forth. 2. The combination of a rotating, stellated dust separating reel, a horizontal cutoff which isolates certain of the stellated sections, a kuocker striking at intervals against such isolated sectious, and a dust-box to catch the dislodged dust, substantially as set forth. 3. The combination of a stellated dust-separating reel rotating about a horizontal axis, a cut-off which isolates certain of the stellated sections, an inclosing-case, which admits and directs the dust-laden air to the sections not isolated, and mechanism for detaching, collecting, and carrying away the dust, substantially as set forth. 4. The combination with an inclosing-case of a stellated dust-collecting reel with an open head, a horizontal shaft carrying such reel, and around which the air may escape axially, and a suction-fan arranged to draw the air through the screen radially and from the reel through the opening around the shaft, substantially as set forth. 5. In a dust-collector, the combination with a revolving reel, and a case inclosing the same of rings or bearings interposed between the casing and heads of the reel around openings in the heads, substantially as and for the purposes set forth. 6. The combination of the dust-collecting reel consisting of the heads, the inner and outer series of cloth-bars and the cloth, the cut-off within the reel, the casing, the fan, and the partitions below the reel, substantially as set forth. 7. A dust-collecting reel, consisting of the circular beads, an inner series of ribs, an outer series of ribs, cloth arranged in zigzag planes, around the ribs and forming sections having converging sides in combination with the casing, supporting-rings connecting the reel-heads with the casing, and à partition projecting from the lower part of the casing into close proximity with the periphery of the reel, whereby aircurrents are prevented from passing back and forth beneath the reel, as and for the purposes set forth. The following reservation clause appears in the case: It is not intended in this application to cover all the inventions disclosed in the drawings and made the subject of this application. In a divisional application I have covered the specific combinations involved in the form of machine shown in Figs. 5, 6, 7, and 8, which has the reel suspended upon hollow trunnions. July 19, 1882, Holt filed four other applications embracing subjectmatter set forth above in describing the invention, and declared these |