c 

0 

p 

y 

- REF ID:A521457. 

Alleged canbination in which one element .is novel. 

Where it was old in a time-recording mechanism to provide a 

revolving drum.operated by clockwork, a record-sheet to be wound 

thereon as the drum revolved, and a marking-point which made a 

mark on the record-she~t when placed in contact therewith, and it 

was also old to make a record on a~lamp-blacked surface by the 

removal or a portion of such surface by means of a ccacting stylus, 

it does not involve invention to use in a time-recording mecha11ism 

a record-sheet having a removable surface in combination with a 

stylus which removes a portion of said surface, although the record-sheet itself may be novel (See card 3660 S-3) In·re Hawley, 121 

O.G. 691 (1905). S . · . 

Substitution of new element in old eombination. 

The substitution for an old element in a combination or an 

element performing a similar function, but constructed in a different 

way, does !lQi render the combination itself patentable ~there 

!.§. ne, resultant change in the operation. In such a case,- although 

the substituted element may be superiC?rt" the invention lies in the 

element and not in .the combination. Id •. 3660-5 (5896) 

JA'pproved for Release by NSA on 12-16-2013 pursu~nt to E.O. 1352§ 
c 

0 

p 

y 

·REF ID:A521457e 

Code message not an "art" 

(c: c. N. Y. 1911). The Berardini patent No. 889,094, for a code 

message, claims 1 to 6, held invalid, the subject-matter thereof' not 

falling within any of' the statutory classes of invention. Claim 4 

reads as follows 1 "A code message comprising a series of elements, the 

number of which is a multiple of the number of elements constituting 

a code unit, each code unit consisting of two portions, one of which 

indicates the vellue or amount or the order, while the other is a record 

mark identifying the parties to the transaction, the message also including means indicating the va1lue of the elements representing the 

amounts of' the orders." Held that it the invention falls within any 

of the ·statutory classes or invention it must be an "art". On this 

point the court said a If, therefore, this patent be construed as not 

merely for a thing called a "code message," but fore.. system of transmitting code messages, for a process or method or cable communication 

in cipher, the question arises whether such a/Process or such an art 

is patentable upon the evidence. * * * No particular code message can 

be produced which in S'lery exemplar thereof' is the single subject or 

this patent. Indeed, the claims are misnomers. The patent is not intended 

to be for a code message, in the sense that patents have been granted 

for books of' a peculiar kind. The patent is really for a system of 

devising code messages, and as such it is obnoxious. The patent is 

really for advice. It is for an art only in the sense that one speaks 

or the art of painting, or the art of curving the thrown baseball. Such 

arts, however ingenious, difficult, or amusing, are not patentable 

within any statute of' the u. s. Berardini v. Tocci, 190 F. 329. 

3660-U (7677) 4th Quar. , 1911 ,· Copyright 1912 by Card Digests 6