EOWELL V. LINPSAT. 293 �nation. It is a settled rule of law that where a patent is for a combination of known parts, it is not infringed by the use of any number of the parts less than the whole ; for the patent in every sueh case is for that identical combination, and nothing else, and a combination of any less number of parts is a different thing. Sliarp v. Tifft, 2 Fed. Ebp. 697. This prin- ciple bas been so often reiterated that it is elementary. Prouty V. Ruggles, 16 Pet. 336; Lee v. Blandy, 2 Fish. 89; Latta V. Shawk, 1 Fish. 465 ; Gould v. Rees, 15 Wall. 187. There is, however, another class of combiuations, where some of the parts are new and others old, and where the new parts are claimed as inventions. If the combination is of this char- aeter, the appropriation of the part which is new is an in- fringement. Latta v. Shawk, supra; Lee v. Blandy, supra; Sharp V. Tifft, supra. The complainants elaim that their patent falls within the latter class. They insist that the slottedwoodenbeam used for the purposes designatedin their combination is a new invention in and of itself, and that as the defendants use such a beam they infringe. It may be, and in fact the testimony tends to establish, that a slotted wooden beam was not used before complainants' patent for holding cultivator teeth. But this is not enough to make it a new thing within the rule last above stated. As matter of fact, a beam containing a slot or mortise, such as that in the complainants' device, is old, and the most that can be right- fuUy claimed in that respect is that an old and well-known part or thing is applied to a new use as part of a patented combination. Furthermore, the complainants do not in their specifications or claim allege that they are the inventors of the slotted beam, nor of anything less than the ontire combi- nation. And it is conclusively settled that where a patentee claims as bis invention only the combination which he de- scribes, the separate parts which constitute the combination are to be regarded as old, or common and public. �In Rich V. Close, 4 Fish. 282, it was said, by Judge Wood' ruff, that "an inventer must be taken to know of what his invention consists, and his patent does not secure to him the exclusive right in anything more than he claims to have ��� �
