Whitman,  2  Stort/,  609,  621,

A  patent  may  embrace  both  a  combination  consisting  of  several
elements,  which,  together,  compose  an  organized  machine,  and  sub-
combinations consisting  of  fewer  members  of  the  same  elements,
Stevens  v.  Pritchard,  10  Pat.  Of.  Gaz.  505;  4  Cliff.  417.
A  broad  claim  in  a  patent  cannot  be  sustained  for  merely  put-
ting together  two  old  tools  for  convenience  of  manipulation  in  their
several  and  distinct  uses  ;  the  patent  must  be  limited  to  some  patent-
able improvement,  either  in  the  method  of  combining  the  tools,  or
in  one  or  more  of  the  tools  themselves.  Tower  v.  Bemis,  &c.  Hard-
ware Co.,  19  Fed.  Rei>'r,  498.
An  inventor  may  claim  in  one  patent  a  combination  of  devices,
when  they  are  so  connected  as  to  operate  in  a  certain  way  ;  and  in
another,  he  may  claim  in  combination  with  some  of  those  devices,
another  one,  by  means  of  which,  especially,  the  operation  so
described  is  produced.  Wheeler  v.  McCormick,  4  Pat.  Off.  Gaz.
69'.';  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cos.  r>6\;  11  Blatchf.  334.
If  the  same  combination  existed  before,  up  to  a  certain  point,
and  the  inveniion  consists  in  adding  some  new  machinery,  in  some
improved  mode  of  operation,  or  some  new  combination,  the  patent
must  be  limited  to  the  improvement.  Whitney  «.  Emmctt,  Baldw.
303.
53.  Hule,  that  the  Incentlon  must  be  "New."

To  entitle  orje  claiming  as  an  inventor,  to  a  patent,  his  invention
must  be  "new  ;"  novelty  is,  by  the  statute,  an  essential  condition,
Bedford  v.  Hunt,  1  Mas.  302;  Perfection  Window  Cleaner  Co.  v.
Bosley,  2  Fed.  EepW,  574;  9  Biss.  385  ;  5  Bann.  &  A.  Pat.  Cas.
