8LAWB0N V. Q. S.^ P. P. A F. B. 00. 533 �the -Windows, provided only they are so arrangea that the passengers can see through one and the driver the other. �It must also be observed that the first claim described a fare box similar in ail its respects to thefare box described in the second claim, -with the single exception that it contained but one window, so arranged that the driver could see through it. And such a fare box the disclaimer asserts was known prier to the plaintiiï'B invention. It is apparent, therefore, that the only novelty in the plaintiff's invention, as it now stands described in his patent, consists in the additional •window, so arranged that a passenger by looking through it can see the fare deposited by him, The question, therefore, at once arises, whether the addition of such a window to a known style of fare box, having a window arranged so that the driver can see the fare when deposited by the passenger, constitutes an invention within the meaning of the patent laws. �The yiew taken in behalf of the plaintiff is that the claim is for a combination consisting of certain old elements and one new element, namely, the additional window. �But no new result is accomplished by the introduction of the additional window in the fare box. The fare is deposited as before, and reaches its final destination in precisely the same way as before, without acceleration, detention, or devia- tion. The only distinction between the old and the new box is that in the old box the fare, in its. passage from the pas- senger to the lower compartment of the box, passes by one window, while in the plaintiff's box it passes by two Windows. This distinction does not constitute a difference in the resuit. The additional window, it is true, permits the transmission of , light through a part of the box, where before it could not pass. But it accomplishes this resuit without aid from any other part of the machine, and in so doing it in no way mod- ifies the operation of any of the other parts. There is, in fact, no joint operation, and the case is one of simple ag- gregation, not combination. Furthermore, ail that the plain- tiff did was to duplicate one of the features of the machine. 8ome convenience, doubtless, resulted from this duplication, ����
