Produced by Joe Longo and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This book was
produced from scanned images of public domain material
from the Google Print project.)
UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE
THE CLASSIFICATION OF PATENTS
[Illustration: Department of the Interior]
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1915
PREFATORY NOTE.
Parts A and B of the following pages are designed to acquaint all
persons using the Patent Office classification with the principles upon
which the reclassification is proceeding.
Part C consists of a few tentative rules advanced with the notion of
fixing classification practice within the office in certain doubtful
cases.
Part D is intended to inform examiners reclassifying within examining
divisions respecting the initial procedure in reforming a class.
CONTENTS.
Page.
A. Introduction. 1
Past classifications of the U. S. Patent Office. 1
Beginning of revision. 2
Precedents and authorities. 3
Definition of scientific classification. 4
B. Principles of the new classification of the Patent Office. 4
Elements of a Patent Office classification. 4
Basis of classification. 5
Art as a basis. 5
Function or effect as a basis. 7
Structure as a basis. 8
Division and arrangement. 9
Infinitude of possible combinations. 10
Division and arrangement in the natural sciences. 10
Difficulty of entitling a subclass corresponding to every
combination. 11
Expedients to reduce the number of subdivisions. 12
Superiority and inferiority. 15
Definite positional relationship of subdivisions. 16
Indented schedules. 17
Bifurcate division. 19
Utility of arrangement according to resemblances. 19
Definition. 20
Cross-references and search-notes. 21
Diagnosis to determine classification. 22
Claimed or unclaimed disclosure. 22
Diagnosis of pending applications. 23
Difficulties due to varying ideas of claims. 25
C. Rules of classification. 26
Basis of classification. 26
1. "Art" as the basis. 26
2. Operative or manipulative arts. 26
3. Structures. 26
4. Composition of matter and formed stock. 26
Division and arrangement. 27
5. Exhaustive division; miscellaneous subclass. 27
6. Subclasses not to overlap. 27
7. Subclasses of any group to be formed on one basis. 27
8. Apparent exception to rules 6 and 7. 27
9. Relative position of subclasses. 27
10. Indention of subclasses. 29
11. Different kinds of titles for subclasses. 29
12. Arrangement to limit search and cross references. 30
Definition. 30
13. Tentative definition. 30
14. How to define. 30
15. Explanatory notes may sometimes displace definition. 31
Cross-references and search-notes. 31
16. Impossibility of cross-referencing all disclosures. 31
17. Occasion and direction of cross-referencing. 31
18. Occasion and scope of search-notes. 32
Diagnosis to determine classification. 32
19. Patents diagnosed by claimed disclosure. 32
20. Patents diagnosed by most intensive claim. 33
21. Exception to rule 19, claim, for a part of a disclosed
combination. 33
22. Exception to rule 19, claims for a part of a disclosed
combination. 33
23. Exception to rule 19, generic combination old as matter
of common knowledge. 34
24. Exception to rule 19, article of manufacture defined
only by material. 34
25. Exception to rule 19, utilizing a composition. 34
26. Exception to rule 19, utilizing a machine. 34
27. Patents having claims for several different
inventions. 35
28. General rule of superiority between statutory kinds of
invention. 35
29. Exception to rule 28. 35
30. Process and apparatus. 36
31. Article of manufacture and instrument for making a part
of it or performing any minor act relative thereto. 36
32. Process and product where search for the process would
have to be made among machines. 36
33. Process and product where search for the process would
have to be made among products. 36
34. Process of making a composition and the composition
where the process is peculiarly adapted to make the
composition. 37
35. Article of manufacture or composition and process for
making one of the parts of the article or ingredients of
the composition. 37
D. Procedure in reclassifying within examining divisions. 37
1. General attitude. 37
Procedure involving only cursory scrutiny of familiar patents--
2. Consider wholes in forming tentative subdivisions of
subclasses. 38
3. Write tentative definitions of subdivisions. 38
4. Consider the significance of analogies found to traverse
parts of two or more existing subclasses. 38
5. Arrange groups on parallel or accordant lines where
practicable. 38
6. Watch for subcombinations deserving separate
recognition. 38
7. Consider whether the groups collectively will constitute
a proper class and their best correlation. 38
Procedure involving rigorous analysis--
8. Diagnose each patent for original classification. 39
9. Group and consider the disposition of patents deemed
foreign to the class. 39
10-15. Consider and indicate cross-referencing within
and to and from the class. 39, 40
Note. 40
THE CLASSIFICATION OF PATENTS
(A) INTRODUCTION.
Classification lies at the foundation of the mental processes. Without
the power of perceiving, recognizing resemblances, distinguishing
differences in things, phenomena and notions, grouping them mentally
according to those resemblances and differences, judgment is impossible,
nor could reason be exercised in proceeding from the known to the
unknown.
* * * * *
The facilitation and abbreviation of mental labor is at the bottom of
all mental progress. The reasoning faculties of Newton were not
different in qualitative character from those of a ploughman; the
difference lay in the extent to which they were exerted and the number
of facts which could be treated. Every thinking being generalizes more
or less, but it is the depth and extent of his generalizations which
distinguish the philosopher. Now it is the exertion of the classifying
and generalizing powers which thus enables the intellect of man to cope
in some degree with the infinite number and variety of natural phenomena
and objects. (Jevons, Principles of Science.)
PAST CLASSIFICATIONS OF UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE.
As under the patent laws the people of the United States assume all the
risks in granting a patent for any means of the "useful arts," a
classification that will facilitate a judgment respecting the
patentability of any means presented to the Patent Office is of peculiar
moment. The enormous extent, diversity, and refinement of the useful
arts preclude the formation of a judgment on novelty within a reasonable
time, unless the necessary comparisons with known processes and
instruments have been previously made along the lines that searches must
follow and the results of such comparisons made available in a
classification. The vast majority of available disclosures of the arts
occur in patents. Hence the Patent Office classification must be
adjusted in the main to the analysis, diagnosis, and orderly arrangement
of the disclosures of patents.
For more than 80 years United States patents have been classified. The
first published classification, promulgated in 1830, comprised 6,170
patents, divided into 16 classes. The change from a registration to an
examination system in 1836 instigated a new classification in 22
classes, including 9,800 patents. The next came in 1868 with 36 classes,
including about 75,000 patents. On March 1, 1872, a revised
classification was adopted, comprising 145 classes, including 131,000
patents. This classification is said to have been planned by Dr. Edward
H. Knight. The placing of the patents in accordance with the schedule of
classes is said to have been done by the several examiners. The class
arrangement was purely alphabetical by class titles, and the number
designations followed the alphabetical order. The names of things to be
found in the several classes were arranged alphabetically under each
class title. No attempt was made to bring the titles of allied materials
into juxtaposition or to effect other definite arrangement with
reference to subject matter in the printed schedules. A consolidated
name index supplemented the list of names by classes.
This classification of 1872 is in part the classification that now
exists, many of the same class numbers and titles being still in use.
Examiners were apparently permitted to make changes in classification to
suit their convenience without notice until 1877. In that year a
revision of the published schedule was made by a committee, resulting in
the addition of 13 new classes, and examiners were ordered to transfer
patents in accordance with the new titles. The first classification
published with distinct subclasses appeared in 1880. From that time
until 1898 the classification grew by addition and subdivision of
classes to suit the ends of individual examiners or in response to
supposed exigencies of the work where one division was thought to be
overloaded and another underloaded, and the alphabetical arrangement of
subclasses under each class has succeeded the alphabetical list of
names. The arbitrary correspondence originally established between the
alphabetical order of class titles and the numerical order was destroyed
as soon as expansion of the classification began.
However suitable to the then-existing material of the useful arts the
classification of 1872 may have been, it failed as fail all inductive
processes wherein the generalizations are not broad and deep. (Isaac
Newton's intellect could detect the resemblance between the falling
fruit and the motions of the planets.) The classification of 1872 was
not exhaustive; it failed to recognize to the fullest extent what Bishop
Wilkins saw nearly 300 years ago, to wit, that there are "arts of arts;"
and it failed to provide for future invention of new species in the same
art, and to recognize that new arts could be formed from combinations of
the old.
BEGINNING OF REVISION.
The Classification Division was created in the hope that guiding
principles of classification could be developed and applied for the
purpose of amending or revising the classification whereby patents could
be placed with greater assurance, and whereby the searcher with these
guiding principles in mind might find the nearest references. It was
confronted with the problem of revising while at the same time keeping
accurate record of all changes, correcting all indexes of patents, and
using copies in constant demand for search at the same time,
necessitating much clerical work, and constant interruption--of
correcting rather than planning anew; of mending a machine while
constantly increasing duty was required of it.
Ideas on the subject of revision were called for by the Commissioner of
Patents, and all in the Patent Office had an opportunity to set forth
their notions. The views of one met with approval and in accordance with
those views a "Plan of Classification" was prepared and promulgated in
1900. What other plans may have been submitted is not now generally
known. But in substantial accordance with that published plan, the
process of revision has proceeded for more than 14 years until
approximately 50 per cent of the patents (including incomplete work)
have been placed in revised classes.
PRECEDENTS AND AUTHORITIES.
No effective precedents have been found in any prior classifications of
the arts. The classifications of the principal foreign patent offices
have not been materially different in principle from the United States
Patent Office classifications of the past.
The divisions found suitable for book classification for library use,
have not been deemed adequate to the exactness and refinement essential
to a patent office classification of the useful arts. The systems of
class and subclass sign or number designations of the modern library
classifications, with their mnemonic significance, afford the most
important suggestions to be drawn from library classification. None of
these systems of designation has been adopted, (1) because of a serious
doubt as to the availability of such designations by reason of the
length or unwieldiness to which they would attain in the refinements of
division necessary in a patent office classification, and (2) because of
the enormous amount of labor necessary to make the change from present
practice.
The best analogies are in the known (but changing) classifications of
the natural sciences, and in them the problems are so different that
they can serve only to illustrate general principles. The broad
principles of classification are well understood. The authorities are
the logicians from the ancient Aristotle to the modern Bentham, Mill,
and Jevons. The effort of the Classification Division has been to adapt
and apply these well-known principles to the enormously diversified
useful arts, particularly as disclosed in patents and applications for
patents.
DEFINITION OF SCIENTIFIC CLASSIFICATION.
It may be well to insert here an authoritative definition: "A scientific
classification is a series of divisions so arranged as best to
facilitate the complete and separate study of the several groups which
are the result of the divisions as well as of the entire subject under
investigation." (Fowler, Inductive Logic.)
Investigation and study of any subject will be facilitated if the facts
or materials pertinent to that subject be so marshaled and arranged that
those most pertinent to it may appear to the mind in some form of
juxtaposition. It is the purpose of the Patent Office classification to
divide and arrange the body and multitudinous units of the useful arts
so that, having the question of novelty of any defined means to answer,
one may with reasonable assurance approach that portion of the rank of
arts in which it will be found if it is not new, and in propinquity to
which will also be found those means that bear the closest resemblances
to that sought for, the resemblances of other units growing less in
proportion to their distance therefrom.
Success in the fundamental aim of facilitating adequate search should
evidently at the same time reduce proportionately the danger that
interfering applications will be overlooked and also effect a
distribution of labor favorable to the acquisition of special skill.
(B) PRINCIPLES OF THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF THE PATENT OFFICE.
THE ELEMENTS OF A PATENT OFFICE CLASSIFICATION.
A classification will be useful in proportion (1) to the pertinence to
the subject under investigation of the facts selected to be grouped
together, or, in other words, in proportion to the appropriateness of
the "basis of classification" to the subject in hand; (2) to the
convenience, stability, and uniformity of the arrangement of the
subdivisions whereby the investigator may proceed with reasonable
assurance to that portion of the rank of groups within which he will
find cognate material; (3) to the accuracy and perspicuity of the
definitions of the several divisions and subdivisions; (4) to the
completeness and reliability of the cross-referencing and
cross-notations; (5) to the uniformity, feasibility, and certainty of
the rules by which the accessions of patents disclosing one or several
inventions may be diagnosed and distributed to the appropriate divisions
of the classification in accordance with the basis adopted.
Corresponding to the foregoing analysis the theory of Patent Office
classification may be treated in five parts: (1) The principles on which
the arts shall be divided (basis of classification); (2) subdivision and
mechanical arrangement of groups; (3) definition; (4) cross-referencing
and search-notes; (5) the choice of features by which a patent shall be
assigned in the classification (diagnosis).
BASIS OF CLASSIFICATION.
The first and most vital factor in any system of classification is the
basis of division, that is, the kind of characteristics common to any
number of objects selected to characterize groups, whereby the
individuals of any group will resemble each other for the purpose in
view more closely than any individual in any group will resemble any
individual in any other group.
"There is no property of objects which may not be taken, if we please,
as the foundation for a classification or mental grouping of those
objects, and in our first attempts we are likely to select for that
purpose properties which are simple, easily conceived, and perceptible
in a first view without any previous process of thought--but these
classifications are seldom much adapted to the ends of that
classification which is the subject of our present remarks." (J. S.
Mill, System of Logic.)
It is clear that a number of objects may be classified on several
different bases. For example, a number of books could be divided into
groups (1) according to the subject of their contents; (2) according to
the language in which the books are written; (3) according to the size
of page; (4) according to the binding material; or (5) according to the
color of the binding. Each of these may be useful classifications for
some purpose. For the student of literature none is of value except the
first; for the connoisseur in bindings, only the last three. A
classification of animals including classes of land animals and water
animals would hardly suit a student of zoology, as it would associate
with the shad and perch such differently organized creatures as the
porpoise, whale, and seal. Yet such a classification might prove very
suitable for a student of fisheries.
_Art as a basis._[1]--So in seeking a basis for a patent office
classification the purposes of the classification should be the guide.
Allegations of ulterior uses[2] (such as may be made merely because the
inventor thought of applying his invention to those uses only, or in an
effort to get the application examined in a certain division) and other
superficial bases should be avoided. That basis will best suit the
purpose which effects such an arrangement as will exhibit in suitable
groups the "state of the prior art," by which is here meant not
necessarily all the instruments of a trade or industry, or all the
articles sold by a shopkeeper, as a stationer, but those means that
achieve similar results by the application of similar natural laws[3] to
similar substances.
As all inventions are made with the ultimate object of satisfying some
human desire, the utility of an invention appears to be a natural basis
of classification. It is apparent, however, that most inventions may
contribute to numerous utilities besides the ultimate one. Many
processes and instruments intervene between the seed planter and the
wheaten rolls upon the breakfast table. The plow may be viewed as an
agricultural instrument or as an instrument of civil engineering,
according as it is used for preparing the field for planting or rounding
a road. A radiating coil of pipe may be thought of as a condenser of
steam or of alcoholic vapors, according as it is applied to one material
or another; as a cooler or a heater, according to the temperature of a
fluid circulated through it. A hammer may drive nails, forge iron, crack
stone or nuts. Underlying all of these ulterior utilities, there is a
fundamental one to which the normal mind will reach in its natural
processes and there rest. The plow loosens or turns over the surface of
earth; the coil effects an exchange of heat between its interior and
exterior; the hammer strikes a blow. A classification of plows in
agriculture, road building, or excavating, according to stated ultimate
use; of a radiator coil as a steam condenser, still, jacket-water
cooler, refrigerator, or house heater; of the hammer as a forging tool,
a nail driver, or a nut cracker, appears to separate things that are
essentially alike. But classifying a plow on its necessary function of
plowing, a radiator on its necessary function of exchanging heat, a
hammer on its necessary function of striking a blow, evidently results
in getting very similar things together. Assuming for the moment that
utility is a reasonable basis of division of the useful arts, it is
deemed more logical to adopt as a basis some utility that _must_ be
effected by the means under consideration when put to its normal use
rather than some utility that _may_ be effected under _some_ conditions.
Two of the five predictables of ancient logic are property[4] and
accident.[5] The capacity of the hammer to strike a blow, the capacity
of the radiator coil to exchange heat, are in the nature of properties.
The capacity of the hammer to crack nuts, of the coil to condense steam,
are in the nature of accidents--something that follows from the impact
and the heat exchange because of the particular accidental conditions of
operation. To select an accident as a basis of classification is
contrary to the laws of thought.
It may be said then that the Patent Office classification is based upon
"art" in the strict sense in which the word may be said to be used in
section 4886, Revised Statutes, but not necessarily in the looser sense
of industries and trades. A proper maintenance of the distinction
between the word "arts" of the statute and the phrase "industrial arts"
used in the sense of industries and trades is essential to an effective
classification for the purposes of a patent office search. Similar
instruments have been patented in three different classes, because of
the statements that one was designed for cooling water, another for
heating water, another for sterilizing milk; in four different classes,
because of the statements that one apparatus was to separate solids from
the gases discharged from a metallurgical furnace, another to separate
carbon from the combustion gases of a steam-boiler furnace, another to
remove dust and tar from combustible gas, and another to saturate water
with carbon dioxid. Owing to the continuance of a classification based
largely on remote use, many applications come into the office setting
forth inventions of very general application which nevertheless have to
be classified more or less arbitrarily in one of several arts in which
they may be used but to which they are not limited.
_Function or effect as a basis._[6]--Means of the useful arts are
related in different degrees. Resemblances selected as bonds for a
number of inventions may be more or less close. It is axiomatic that
close resemblances should be preferred over looser ones for
classification purposes. Processes and instruments for performing
general operations, such as moving, cutting, molding, heating, treating
liquids with gases, assembling, etc., are more closely bonded than those
for effecting the diverse separate successive operations directed toward
complex special results, such as making shoes, buttons, nails, etc.
Means of the former sort perform an essentially unitary act--the
application of a single force, the taking advantage of a single property
of matter. Those of the latter sort require the application of several
different acts employing frequently a plurality of forces or taking
advantage of several properties of matter. In the former case,
classification can be based on what has been called function, in the
latter it cannot be based on function but can be based on what has been
called effect (or product).
Function is closely related to cause. It is an axiom of logic that cause
is preferable to effect as a basis of those classifications designed for
scientific research. Hence the functional basis is preferred in all
cases in which it can be applied. A condenser for the fumes of zinc is
much more like a condenser for the fumes of acid or the vapor of water
than it is like the art of recovering zinc from its ores, and it employs
only one principle, to wit, heat interchange. A water-jacket for cooling
the walls of a gas-producer or glass-furnace is much more like a
water-jacket for cooling the walls of a limekiln or steam-boiler furnace
than it is like the art of gas-making or manufacture of glass articles.
In accordance with what are thought to be the correct principles,
therefore, the zinc-condenser ought not to be classified as a part of
the art of metallurgy, nor the water-jacket as a part of the art of
gas-making, merely because these instruments have a use in these arts,
but should be included, respectively, in classes based upon the more
fundamental utilities effected by them.
Although it is evident that molding a button is more like molding a
door-knob than it is like making buttons by the combined operations of
sawing, grinding, turning, and drilling, wherefore the molding of
buttons should be classified in a general plastic art rather than in a
special button-making art, yet the making of buttons by a plurality of
different kinds of operations can be placed only in a class based upon
the product, to wit, button-making. Since, therefore, the combination of
many different operations for the production of a specific article can
not be classified on the basis of any single function, it must be
classified on the basis of product. Thus by selecting essential function
as a basis when possible, and resulting effect when the functional basis
is not possible, one may approximate to the correct classification
described by Herbert Spencer as follows: "A true classification includes
in each class those objects that have more characteristics in common
with one another than any of them have with objects excluded from the
class."[7]
So it is deemed better to classify in accordance with the function or
effect it is known a means _must_ perform or accomplish than in
accordance with the _object_ with respect to which an act or acts are
directed or in accordance with some _effect_ which may or may not
result.
_Structure as a basis._--The phrase "structural classification" is
frequently made use of. The application of the phrase to processes is
manifestly absurd. The Patent Office never had a structural
classification except in a limited sense. How could a machine, for
example, be classified on structure, leaving out of consideration its
function and the effect of its normal operation? In the refinements of
subdivision however, it becomes frequently desirable to form minor
subdivisions on structural differences. And it may also be that
instruments will be presented for classification that are of such
general utility as to baffle the efforts of the intellect to attain to
the fundamental and necessary function, in which case a
structure-defined class may best suit the needs of classification.
As between a classification based upon structure and one based upon
utility, the choice has been for the latter, without prejudice, however,
to instances that may arise in favor of the former.
The subject of structural classification will be dropped with a
quotation from the original pamphlet "Plan of Classification," etc. (p.
5): "A purely 'structural' classification is almost impossible on
account of the infinite variety of mechanical combinations, and to
attempt it would probably result in utter confusion, for the classes
could not be defined, and the classification would be a mere digest of
mechanical elements having no community of function."
DIVISION AND ARRANGEMENT.
Having divided the aggregate of things to be classified into a large
number of groups on a satisfactory basis, a most useful work will have
been accomplished and the purpose of a classification to assemble the
things most nearly alike and separate them from other things will have
been partially achieved. Unless these numerous groups are arranged in
some definite understandable relation to each other, or are placed in
definite known positions where they can be found, the mere formation of
the groups, on however good a basis, is not a complete classification.
Furthermore, unless the position of each group with respect to those
other groups that resemble it in whole or in part is made known, he who
wishes to find other related matter must seek aimlessly with no
assurance that his quest will end until the whole series shall have been
investigated. Each classified group is metaphorically a pigeonhole to
contain similar material. If the pigeonholes are properly labeled, one
can ultimately locate those that contain the matter he is seeking if he
knows the name that has been applied to it. If the pigeonholes are
arranged in alphabetical order, for example, he may find all related
material, _provided he knows the name of every related group of
material_, even though very similar things may bear names as far apart
as A and Z. But if all things were so placed that, adjacent and in
certain fixed relation to each pigeonhole, other related matter could be
found, the resemblances lessening in proportion to the separation, and
if the entire area of pigeonholes were divided, and certain areas
assigned to certain kinds of things defined in general terms, guessing
the location of and desultory search for things that may have different
names, but yet be very much alike, would be lessened and all cognate
material be bunched. A second vital factor of a system of
classification, therefore, is the arrangement of the groups.
_Infinitude of possible combinations._--There are now over 1,125,000
United States patents, each presumptively covering a creation of the
useful arts that is different from every other. Most of these patents
also disclose a plurality of elements or acts. Each of these patented
means is potentially an element of a more complex combination that may
be patented. When one considers merely the number of forms of energy,
the number of known substances and known mechanical elements, and
attempts to figure possible combinations and permutations, it becomes
apparent that the size of the numbers resulting is incomprehensible.
Consider the possibilities of combination also of the enormously varied
disclosures of patents. Calculations of the possible combinations and
permutations of a small number of objects are familiar. Different
combinations of the letters of the alphabet are sufficient to record the
sum of human knowledge in many languages. With substantially two octaves
of the diatonic scale the world's melodies have been sounded, nor do any
doubt that our successors will thrill to airs that we have never heard.
"Thirty metals may be combined into 435 binary alloys, 4,060 ternary
alloys, 27,405 quaternary alloys" (Jevons). This does not take into
consideration differences in proportion that figure so largely in
results in the arts of substance-making. The total number of possible
alloys of the known metals is incomprehensible. A moment's thought
respecting the numbers of the means of the useful arts will alleviate
any fears that the possibilities of invention are near the limit and
will give food for further thought to all concerned with this attempt to
classify the useful arts to the point of refinement necessary to enable
this office to pass judgment with reasonable speed and accuracy upon the
approximately 75,000 applications filed each year.
_Division and arrangement in the natural sciences._--Some of the natural
sciences are said to be in what is known as the classificatory stage of
development. In some sciences the subject of classification has been
predominant and these furnish excellent examples of scientific
classification.
The much-admired classifications of zoology, botany, and mineralogy are
among the best available models of logical division,[8] systematic and
analytical arrangement. The most casual consideration of these
classifications, however, renders apparent the relative simplicity of
the task of classifying natural objects differentiated by fixed natural
laws as compared with the task of classifying the products of the
creative and imaginative faculties as applied to the useful arts. The
chimera and other animal monsters occur only as figments of the mind.
Zoological classification does not have to classify combinations of
birds, fishes, reptiles, and mammals, nor does it deal in the way of
classification with the parts of animals, nor is the question of
absolute numbers of instances a matter of moment to such a
classification, all of the members of a species being alike for
classification purposes. But any instrument of the useful arts may be
combined with some other, any part with some other part. Organizations
may be parts of some other organizations, or even mutually parts of each
other, as, for example, a pump may be a part of a lubricator, or a
lubricator may be a part of a pump. Some parts are peculiar to one
instrument, some are common to many. Every member of a species differs
from every other member. Added to this, the intellectual differences
between the persons who present the applications for patent, the
differences in their generalizing powers, the relatively broad and
narrow views of two or more persons presenting the same invention
(variations not indulged in by nature) complicate the problem of
classifying the useful arts.
_Difficulty of entitling a subclass corresponding to every
combination._--In any main class or group of the useful arts there are
always a number of characteristics that it may be desirable to take note
of in subdivision titles. A moment's thought shows the impossibility of
taking care of any large number of combined characteristics so as to
provide exactly for each combination, for the reason that the
limitations of space and of the perceptive faculties forbid. For a
simple illustration, the imaginary classification of books for use by a
bookseller may be recurred to. The dealer, it may be assumed, has books
on (1) four different subjects, history, science, art, and fiction, (2)
each printed in four languages, English, German, French, Spanish, (3) in
four different sizes of page, folio, quarto, octavo, duodecimo, (4)
bound in four materials, leather, rawhide, cloth, paper. Here are four
main characteristics, each in four varieties. A customer is likely to
ask for Ivanhoe in English, octavo, bound in leather. Now if the
bookseller had sought to arrange the books into one class according to
subject matter, into another according to language, another according to
size, another according to binding, he would have fallen into confusion,
because his classes would be formed on different principles or bases and
overlap. Some histories will be in French, some will have octavo pages,
and some cloth bindings. But if he divides first on the basis of subject
matter, then each subject matter into language, each language book into
sizes, each size into material of binding, he can immediately place his
hand on a class wherein the book will be if he has it; but this
classification, based on four different characteristics and four
varieties of each, has necessitated the formation of 256 classes or
divisions, and if five characteristics were provided for, 1,024
divisions would be required.
Adapting the illustration of the books to a patent office
classification: If it were possible to view these characteristics as
patentable in combinations of all or in any combinations less than all,
and also as separate characteristics, 16 divisions additional to the 256
for each independent characteristic would have to be provided, as well
as other divisions for combinations of less than the whole, in order to
make the classification absolutely indicative of every feature, and the
number of divisions would be enormous. In such a classification, after
the proper division had been located, the search would be nothing, the
difficulty would be to find the appropriate class.
_Expedients to reduce the number of subdivisions._--Fortunately most
people carry on their mental processes in accordance with certain
uniformities. Under this uniformity of thought no patentable
relationship may be alleged between a quarto volume and the subject of
history or between a leather binding and the German language; wherefore
4 classes of coordinate value, based on the 4 characteristics, each
divided into 4 subclasses, 16 divisions in all, may serve the purpose of
a Patent Office search. But if, as sometimes happens, a patentable
relationship had been assumed and admitted between a leather binding and
any of the languages, or any of the subjects, or between any two or more
of those different characteristics, provision could be made for such
combinations by the following expedients:
(1) Arrange the characteristics, in the order of relative significance
or importance for the purpose in view, in four groups, giving each group
the characteristic title. Under each title arrange the varieties in a
similar relation as follows in either (1) or (2):
(1) (2)
Cl. X.--BOOKS. Cl. X.--BOOKS.
0. Miscellaneous. 1. Subject-matter--
0.5 Subject-matter-- 2. History.
1. History. 3. Science.
2. Science. 4. Art.
3. Art. 5. Fiction.
4. Fiction-- 6. Language--
4.5 Language-- 7. English.
5. English. 8. German.
6. German. 9. French.
7. French. 10. Spanish.
8. Spanish. 11. Size--
8.5 Size-- 12. Folio.
9. Folio. 13. Quarto.
10. Quarto. 14. Octavo.
11. Octavo. 15. Duodecimo.
12. Duodecimo. 16. Binding--
12.5 Binding material-- 17. Leather.
13. Leather. 18. Rawhide.
14. Rawhide. 19. Cloth.
15. Cloth. 20. Paper.
16. Paper.
Subject-matter, assumed to be the most important characteristic, is
placed first. Any exhibit of mere material for binding, mere size, mere
language, or mere subject-matter, would fall into the correspondingly
entitled group. If, however, a book on history in German or a history in
red leather, etc., were to be classified, it would be placed in subclass
"History" in the subject-matter group, and a French book in green cloth
would be placed in subclass "French" in the language group. That is,
combinations of any characteristic with any one or more other
characteristics may be placed in the group for that characteristic
deemed the most significant and which is highest in the schedule. Again,
by assigning a number to each generic title, each such title becomes
thereby the miscellaneous group for varieties other than those indented
under it, as well as for all varieties associating any characteristic
with one or more of those standing lower down. Thus, a book of poems
would belong in subclass "Subject-matter" and a 16mo volume bound with
purple celluloid covers would belong in subclass "Size." So, by giving
meaning to relative position, exhaustive arrangement is sought to be
provided in a reasonable number of groups. To provide for other features
that may be presented in future, an additional miscellaneous group may
be added at the top (1), or the class title (2) might be deemed to
represent the unclassified residue and a depository for future matter
not specifically provided for.
(2) If the number of instances of association of subject-matter and
binding materials, language and size, etc., are numerous, additional
groups might be placed above the groups having the names of the
characteristics, the fact of the existence of these groups indicating
that the characteristic groups are for single characteristics only and
do not include books having several different ones. In such case the
schedule might be headed by a miscellaneous group, having either the
title "Miscellaneous" or the title of the class, to receive associated
characteristics not provided for by specific titles, immediately
followed by subclasses for the particular associations found to be most
numerous, as follows:
BOOKS.
Miscellaneous.
Subject-matter and language.
Subject-matter and binding material.
Subject-matter.
Language.
Size.
Binding material.
To illustrate further, selecting for the purpose a mass of objects
presenting problems more nearly like those presented to the office in
questions of patentability, let it be assumed that one is to classify
the objects in a heap of metal scrap.
On looking over the material of the heap it is noticed that there are a
large number of metal balls; some have holes through them, some are
hollow, some are smooth on the outside, and some are hollow, smooth, and
perforated, but they are all nevertheless balls, and accordingly all
balls can be separated out and placed in a heap by themselves. Next, the
presence of bars in the general mass is observed, some long, some short,
some straight, some twisted, some of round stock, some of square stock,
etc. These may be gathered together and placed in a separate pile at the
left of the balls. It is further observed that there are many
differently shaped annular bodies in the heap resembling generally the
single links of a chain, some circular, some elliptical, some twisted,
some made of round stock, some of square stock, etc. They are all
nevertheless annular bodies; these may be placed in a separate pile at
the left of the bars.
Now, in the remnant of the original heap, a sufficient number of similar
single elements does not remain from which to make a smaller pile of
elements. Different combinations of links, balls, and bars are, however,
observed in the remaining heap. Some are combinations of links, some
combinations of a ball and link, some of a bar and link, and some of a
bar, link, and ball. These different combinations may be separated out
in the order named and placed in separate piles. After all these things
have been removed, there is left in the original heap a number of odds
and ends or miscellaneous metal objects.
These several groups may now be arranged in the inverse order in which
(in the particular illustration adopted) they have been removed, thus:
1. Miscellaneous (remnants of the original heap of scrap).
2. Combined bar, link, and ball.
3. Combined bar and link.
4. Combined bar and ball.
5. Combined link and ball.
6. Chains.
7. Links.
8. Bars.
9. Balls.
Knowing that objects of metal scrap not covered by the specific titles
will be found in the miscellaneous group, and that the more complex
specifically-named things are to be found first after the miscellaneous
or at the left of the row of piles of materials thus separated and
arranged, and the more simple things and parts farther to the right, the
particular piles to resort to for the things wanted may be definitely
determined. The same processes may be applied to each of the piles.
Thus, balls, in the above illustration, may be divided into--
Balls--
10. Hollow perforated.
11. Hollow grooved.
12. Hollow.
13. Perforated.
14. Grooved.
Again, the same processes may be applied to a mass of more diversified
junk, of which the metal scrap may form one pile, rags another, old
bricks another, old timber another, and, still another, timber having
metal-straps, bolts, nails, etc., connected with it.
_Superiority and inferiority._--In the arrangement of subclasses in a
class, those groups that are related to each other as wholes and parts
are arranged so that the wholes shall stand before the parts, and so
that subclasses defined by effect or by special use shall stand before
those defined by function or general use. For example, in the scrap
illustration above, assuming the titles to be in a printed arrangement,
"chains" precedes "links," which may be parts of chains, and if it had
been desired to separate animal-drags, for instance, from the scrap,
some animal-drags being particular adaptations of a bar, links, and
ball, the group of animal-drags should precede "Bar, link, and ball."
The words "superior" and "inferior" have been used to indicate this
relationship. A class or subclass defined to receive a certain
combination is superior to one defined to receive an element or a
combination that is a part of that certain combination. A class or
subclass defined to receive means for making a particular product, as an
electric lamp, is superior to a class or subclass designed to perform a
general function, as pumping air from a container. And whenever a
question of assignment of a patent or application that contains matters
of two or more groups bearing that relation is raised, the "superior"
group is selected to receive it.
Further, in those instances in which groups are formed on different
bases or different characteristics, not comparable with each other, and
a patent is presented having matter falling in each group, that group
which is highest in position is preferred in those instances where
separate provision for means having both characteristics has not been
made.
In cases of necessity, as where a combination is presented for which no
class has been definitely provided, but classes exist into which the
several parts would fall if separately claimed, the same practice that
obtains in similar situations with respect to two or more _subclasses_
of a class may be followed with respect to two or more _classes_ and the
patent placed in that class which, in accordance with above-stated
principles, should be deemed the "superior."
_Definite positional relationship of subdivisions._--In the metal scrap
example, above, division has been effected on the one basis of form or
contour. If it had been desired to separate also on material, for
example, if it were deemed important to locate all brass scrap, each of
the groups based upon form could be divided into one of _brass_ and one
_not brass_, or the entire heap could be divided into _brass_ and _not
brass_, and under the heading "brass" could be indented the various
articles made of brass, and under "not brass" the various articles not
made of brass, and this would double the number of divisions. If also it
were desired to separate the lead articles in the same manner the number
of classes would be tripled. But, as in the book illustration, it may be
impracticable thus to multiply subdivisions, and the basis "form" having
been selected as of _first-rank_ importance, all divisions based upon
form should be completed and kept together. Then, "material," having
been selected as of _second-rank_ importance, should be carried out with
respect to all objects in which form is non-essential. If enough brass
balls were found to render it advisable to make a subdivision of them,
they should be assembled into a subclass indented under "balls" and not
into a subclass indented under "brass." Having selected one basis as
_primary_, it should never subsequently be made _secondary_ or _vice
versa_. Some such restriction on modes of division appears salutary in a
system of divisions designed to definitely limit search. The arrangement
herein sought to be explained is susceptible of use to limit all
searches for a single definitely stated invention to a subclass properly
entitled to receive it or those indented under it, and to those
subclasses above, which may include it as a part of an organization or
specialized means.
As between coordinate groups divided on the same basis, there is no
question of superiority and inferiority. The terms "superior" and
"inferior" are useful in questions of relationship between combinations
and subcombinations or elements thereof, and between groups founded on
effect or product and those founded on simple function. The mere
difference in complexity of mutually exclusive coordinate groups
involves no relationship of superiority or inferiority. A subclass to
receive a screw-cutting lathe is superior to a subclass to receive a
lathe-headstock, a locomotive class is superior to a class to receive
steam-engines, for the reason that the lathe is a whole of which the
headstock is a part, and the locomotive is an organization of which the
engine is an element. But the headstock subclass is not superior
necessarily to the tailstock subclass simply because the headstock is
commonly more complex than the tailstock. Yet arbitrary preference for
classification in the headstock subclass may be established by position
where an application or a patent contains claims for both.