The ever ubiquitous Yankee inventor fell upon an inexhaustible mine when he tapped the virgin soil of cycledom, and his English brother has not been much less fortunate; in fact, it is questionable whether Jonathan has been able to keep the start of Brother Bull in this matter, with three thousand patents on record in the American office against three thousand five hundred provisional in the English, thirteen hundred and twenty of the latter being sealed, up to March, 1889. Few fields of invention have ever developed so rapidly and interested so many inventors with as little apparent advance to the casual observer. As I have stated in a former chapter, the advance has been a sort of evolution, creditable to those who work the changes, yet with little chance at any time for what is termed a broad patent. When the saddle was raised up over the cranks and the front wheel enlarged, a great stride forward in the art was made, yet it is questionable whether such changes afforded sufficient ground for strong patent claims; twenty years ago they certainly would not have done so, with the feeling and usual action of the patent authorities and general stupidity of patent attorneys at that time. Mere changes in the sizes of wheels would stand a much better chance of being patentable now than some time ago. We have, in fact, a patent now existing, given out to an Englishman, on the Safety rear-driving pattern of machine, in which the proportional diameter of the wheels is pretty well claimed. How this patent was wedged into the American office is somewhat remarkable; if it could be held valid, makers of rear-drivers with a front wheel as large or larger than the rear would find it warm work to continue. Fitting cranks upon the drive-wheel would, with modern patent attorneys, have afforded a broad field for good claims, but it did not seem to in Lallement’s time, seeing the kind he got. The rubber tire, in spite of the fact that it was perhaps the greatest element of all in making a cycle a practical roadster, was so old in other relations that the U. S. patent of Serrel, No. 87,713, afforded no protection to the inventor; but even if it had been used on the wheels of some machines within the knowledge of the Patent Office, which could be used as a reference, a good attorney would now hardly abandon a claim for its use in a cycle on that account. The claim to the hollow or tubular construction of frame,[8] though ingenious, was laughed at by good patent experts; it was the one thing that was old and by right absolutely unpatentable. Yet the attempt to hold it had at one time better prospects of being successful than any other in connection with the great principles in modern cycles; unless the mud-guard should be considered a great principle. The ball-bearings were broadly old, as shown in the American office; still, very good patents have been obtained upon them, sufficient to cause several famous law-suits. There