ii. A conjunction of two or more entities jointly capable of performing a function that can be performed by neither of them separately-e.g. a wheeled carriage and a motor which, when combined, constitute a motor car. iii. A mere conjunction of two or more entities, each of which is capable of performing its functions without reference to the other entity or entities-e.g., a tool, a portion of which serves as a hammer and another portion, say, as a tack-lifter. iv. A conjunction of parts forming an entity which, at one time serving a single function, is yet capable of manipulation such that another function at another time may be performed-i.e. an article convertible from one use to another, e.g. a chair-bedstead. v. Further, in practice, the word "combination," as applied to a patent, is often employed to denote any conjunction of means for which no distinctive or generally recognised appellation can be readily found. This amounts to saying that often inventions can be defined only by an enumeration of their constituents. vi. It is also often used by judges to denote that the invention under consideration is of the class to which the doctrine of mechanical equivalents does not apply— the "Curtis v. Platt" type. vii. In a sense, every invention or tangible object consists in a combination. Whatever entity is taken, it cannot be employed entirely by itself. If, then, as would appear to be the case, the word combination is susceptible of many well-defined meanings, separable but easily merging into one another, it is not surprising that arguments arise concerning the natures of inventions when the discussion introduces the word "combination." II. Disclaimers.-A disclaimer is a sentence which, although drawn up in the form of a "claim," is prefixed by the statement "I do not claim," or contains somewhere within itself the same words. Thus a disclaimer is merely what otherwise would be a claim were it not for the presence of the negative. The word "disclaimer" seems itself to suggest that it is antithetical to the word "claim," but a disclaimer is not really antithetical. Both claims and disclaimers are limitative in their effects and are similar aspects of the same state of affairs. They both act by way of limitation, the one positively and the other negatively. The scope of an invention by a disclaimer is restricted to the residue of what is described after rejection, while in the case of a claim the scope of the invention is restricted to what is retained, all outside of the claim being rejected. What, however, is really antithetical to both a claim and a disclaimer is a statement to which the name of "generalising clause" has been given. III. Generalising Clauses.-The object of a generalising clause is to render it clear that what has been specifically described and illustrated is to be taken by way of example merely, and that the real invention is something which lies deeper than that which a mere cursory glance at the wording of the document and the illustrative drawings would indicate. Before proceeding to sum up in the concise form of a claim what the inventor exactly seeks to protect, or to make clear by negative assertion-i.e., by disclaimer-what it is to which he makes no claim, it may be well, if indeed the invention will at all bear such a mode of treatment, to widen the construction or reading of the specification by inserting a generalising clause. But where a patent can be upheld only on the specification being construed narrowly and the invention held to be limited in its scope, manifestly a generalising clause may so widen the construction as to make the specification claim must be distinguishable from previous inventions. If an invention becomes the parent of many improvements as offspring, we have a master-patent. If there is an absence of earlier cognate inventions we have a pioneer invention, which, in all probability, will prove a master-patent. The term patent-for-improvements is usually applied to a patent which is not entitled to rank as a master-patent. A patent for improvements may be said to consist of a patent for a specific modification of something previously claimed generally, or hitherto known. The terms master-patent and patent-forimprovements are relative. A master-patent corresponds to a genus and a patent-for-improvements to a species of the same genus. In the same way as a species may be considered a genus relatively to its subdivisions, so a patent-for-improvements may be considered in the light of subsequent developments as a master-patent. Since any invention may be cast into the form of a principle and be susceptible of improvement, any invention may form the basis of a master-patent. V. Substantially as Described and Illustrated by the Accompanying Drawings.-Probably no phrase is of more frequent occurrence. When it is desired to show the uselessness of such words as these, the following judicial dictum may be quoted : "The patentees use the word 'substantially' in their claim. . . . That word to my mind is an utterly and entirely useless word because the law gives it to him without using it. The law says if a man, although not literally infringing the letter of the patent, yet substantially infringes it, it is an infringement." On the other hand, when it is sought to make capital by drawing attention to the omission of the words in question, the followino iudicial remark aptly comes to aid :— Having dealt with the conditions which must be complied with in order to obtain a valid patent, and having considered the important subject of the construction or interpretation of specifications, we may now treat of the actual document which evidences the right to the limited monopoly. Since when a patent is granted an entry is made upon a register which is maintained by statutory direction |