west number of elements. It is the duty of the inventor to analyze
his invention and know what is and what is not essential to its
realization. It is the duty of the patent solicitor to sift out the
essential from the non-essential, and to draft claims covering broad
combinations involving only essential elements. Sometimes the inventor
will help him in this matter, but quite as often he will, through
ignorance, hinder him and combat him. The invention having been
carefully analyzed and reduced to its prime factors, and the claim
having been provided to comprise a combination involving no element
which is not essential to a realization of the invention, a new and
more important question arises. The elements have been recited in
terms fitted to the example of the invention thus far developed. The
combination is broadly stated, but the terms of the elements are
limiting. Cannot some ingenious infringer realize the invention by a
similar combination escaping the literalism of the terms of the
elements? It is at this stage that the claim must be carefully
studied. The inventor, or some one for him, must assume the position
of a pirate, and set his wits to work to contrive an organization
realizing the invention but escaping the terms of the proposed claim.
When such an escaping device is schemed out, then the defect in the
claim is developed and the claim must be redrawn. In this way every
possible escape must be studied so as to secure to the inventor
adequate protection for his invention. Solicitors find it difficult to
get inventors to do or consider this matter properly, inventors being
too often inclined to disparage alternative constructions, the matter
being largely one of sentiment founded on the love of offspring.

The wise inventor will recognize the fact that the patent which he
proposes to get is the deed to valuable property; that the object of
the deed is not to permit him to enter upon the property, for he can
do that without the deed, but that it is to keep strangers from
entering upon the property; that he desires to enjoy his invention
without unauthorized competition; that when the property begins to
yield profit it will invite competition; that competitors may make
machines worse than or as good as or better than his; and that he can
get adequate protection only in a claim which would bar poorer as well
as better machines embodying his invention. Briefly, then, all good
claims for mechanism are combinati