The decree, therefore, be for the defendants, and it is so or· dered. The same order will be made in the case of William D. AnStingley and Orville Huntren, No. 2,766, in which drews et ale v. the facts are the same as in the case here considered.
SEARLS V. BOUTON
. Wwcui' Oourt, S. D. New Y qrk. June 22, 1882.)
PATENTS FOR INvENTIONB-REI88UE-ENLARGEMENT Oll' CLAIM.
Where the original patent was for a whip-socket having a bell-shaped top, and appears to cover no whip-sockets not having such a shaped top, a reissue for such whip-sockets generally, without any limitation to that form of top, is to that extent enlarged; within the principles of Miller v. Bridgeport Bra88 00. 21 O. G. 201, and Jame8 V. OamPbeZl, Id. 837.
In Equity. On Rehearing. J.P. Fitch, for orator. N. Davenport, for defendant. WHEELER,D. J. This cause has now been further heard as to the validity of the reissued patent involved therein, No.9, 297, dated July 13, 1aSO, the original of which was dated April 28, 1874, for an improvement in whip·sockets, as affected by the original patent now in evidence. The only question is whether the original will sustain the reissue, It is argued for the orator that the only form of this question railed by the answer is whether the reissue is for the same invention as that described in the original, and that no question of laches can properly be c.onsidered, because no delay il!l alleged. Without considering whether it is necessary to set that defence up separately in the in order to raise that question, it is sufficient now to notice that in this answer it is alleged that the original patent was not surrendered because it was invalid or inoperative by reason of claiming too much, and that in the reissue the claims have been broadened so as to cover more than the orator had the right to claim as new. This seems to sufficiently put in issue the propriety and lawfulness of the enlargement of the claims, and the scope of the patent at the time, and in the manner in which it was done. The original patent was for a whip-socket having a bell-shaped top, and a rubber disk for steadying the whip, fitting into an inner groove, near the top, in the
W:E:LLING V. LA BAU.
bell-shaped part, and appears to cover no whip-sockets not having such a shaped top. The reissue is for such whip-sockets generally, without any limita tion to that form of top. The patent is to that extent, and perhaps in some other parUculars, enlarged in the reissue. That brings this case within the principles of Miller v. Bridgeport Brass Co. 21 O. G. 201, and James v. Campbell, Id. 337, as now understood. Let the decree heretofore ordered be so modified as to dismiss the bill as to this patent.
See ante, 625, and note, 626.
SUrE V. GOOTH.
(Oire-ute Court, 8. D. NetIJ:York. June 15, 1882PATENTS FOB mVENTIONs-PRIOR USE.
Where the defences of prior use and anticipation are not established, injune;; tion for the infringement of the patent will be granted.
WALLACE, C. J. The defences of prior use and anticipation are not well established. In view of the state of the art, the three patents of the complainant in controversy are to be limited to the composition of the specific ingredients in the substantial proportions described. The proofs fail to establish infringement of either patent, except No. 5,940. As to that patent a decree is ordered for an injunction cnd accounting; the injury upon the accounting to be confined to in. fringement consisting of the use of shellac and talc in equal parts substantially. .