Nikola Tesla U.S. Patent 511,916 - Electric Generator Patent Wrapper Page 36

that the latter should contain an unmistakably clear description of the invention. It is not enough that it hist contains a mere dimit or suggestion of the thing claimed. This is the fully established practice in such cases, as may be seen in Seymour vs. Osborne 11 Wallace 516 and a long line of cases all following the leading English case of Hill vs. Evans 6 Law Times N. S. 90, which is exactly in point. According to this line of preceden t even had Je blochkoff given no hint as to what kind of engine he had in contemplation his patent could not have stood as a bar to a subsequent claim for a particular kind of engine, unless the substitution of such form of engine for another were unattended by any new or useful result. In the present case, there can hardly be any question as to the nature of the result of applicant's combination. He produces a far more efficient generator of current, reduces the weight of the engine enormously, and takes advantage of and utilizes for a new purpose & method of regulation of which such an engine is capable, which has never before been hinted at, so far as we are aware. Again, we desire to call attention to claim 2 which we do not think is open to the objection male to claim 1, but we submit, in view of the above reasons that the case, as it stands, is clearly paten table, and that the claims Duncan & Page Alleys for Tecla. should be allowed. 43