generic claim? The answer is that it might in the future develop that
the genus was old, and that the generic claim was invalid, while the
specific claim would still be good. The infringer of the specific
claim may thus be held notwithstanding the generic claim becomes void.
But the inventor cannot claim his second species in his patent. He can
claim the genus, and he can claim one species under that genus, but
all other species must be covered in separate patents. It is even
unwise to illustrate alternative species in a patent for, in case, of
litigation, some one of the alternative species might prove to be old.
This would have the effect, of course, to destroy the generic claim,
but it might possibly have the effect of damaging the specific claim
if it should appear that the specific claim was after all merely for a
modification as distinguished from a distinct species. Were it not for
the danger of broad generic claims being rendered void by discovered
anticipations, there would be no need for claiming species, but in
view of such possibility it is important to claim one species in the
generic patent, and to protect alternative species by other patents.


COMBINATION AND SUB-COMBINATION.

A given machine capable of a given ultimate result having been
invented, a claim may be drawn to cover the combination of elements
comprised in the machine. Such claim will cover the machine as a
whole. But, the fact being recognized that many machines are, after
all, composed of a series of sub-machines, and that these
sub-machines, in turn, are composed of certain combinations of
elements, and that within these sub-machines there are still minor
combinations of elements capable of producing useful mechanical
results, and that the sub-machines, or some of the subordinate