the manner claimed by the complainant. By that instrument the Ala-bastine Company released to the Anti-kalsomine Company all claims which they had against that company by reason of the man· ufacture and sale of the patented article, and also all claims which they had against all other persons who had purchased or sold the same article when manufactured by the Anti-kalsomine Company. This latter-named clause of the instrument, perhaps, does not operate as a release to these respondents, even if, as the complainant contends, the respondents are tabe treated as if they were privies to that instrument; but it seems to me that the release amounts, at least, to an agreement that the purchase by the respondents, from the Anti·kalsomine Company, of the package in question, shall be taken to have been a lawful purchase. H,then, they purchased it lawfully, if follows that they became the lawful owners as against this complainant. I will not say that there might not be an agreement that the respondents should remain the lawful owners of the goods, and at the same time should remain liable to a suit for infringement if they used them or sold them to others; but the existence of an agreement of this character ought not to be found by means of inferences which are in any degree doubtful. It ought to be established by express words or by necessary implication. I find no evidence of such an· agreement in this case. The restraining order, therefore, ought to be dissolved.
KENDALL and others.'
(Oireuit OOU'I't, N. D. Illinois. June 8, 1885.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INvALIDITY OF RET'lSUE.
Weymouth'B reissued letterB patent, No. 10,072, dated April 4, 1882, for aD improvement in hay-knives, are void by reaBon of not being for the Bame in· vention specified in the original of March 7, 1871. Where the general description of the nature of an invention, in the beginning of a Bpecification, iB not a deBoription of the invention itself, it should be read in oonnection with the Bpecific directions aB to the manner in which the device to which it refers is to be made, and the peculiar characteristics which it is to possess.
SAME-CONBTRUCTION OF PATENT-DEBCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
In Equity. Jesse Cox, Jr., and B. F. Thurston, for complainant. Fletcher et Want,1J, for defendants. BLODGETT, J. This is a bill for an injunction and accounting. by reason ofthe alleged infringement, by defendants, of reissued patent. No. 19,072, dated April 4, 1882, issued to George F. Weymouth, asJReported by Charles C. Linthicum, Esq., olthe Ohicago bar.
· HOLT V. KENDALL.
signor to complainant, for an the original patent having been issued March 7, 1871. The defenses set up are (1) that the reissued patent is void on the ground that the claims of the original patent have been unwarrantably expanded, and are for a device than that describedin the original; (2) that the original patent and the reissued patent are void for want of novelty; (3) that the defendants do not infringe. In his specifications in the reissued patent, the patentee says: "My invention consists in a hay-knife dontaining the features of construction hereinafter set forth and claimed." He then proceeds to describe his hay-knife as a blade having one of its edges outwardly cnrved, upon which cutting projections are formed, which are sharpened on those edges nearest the blade point. This blade is provided with two handles, which are set off at one side of the blade at right angles to the edge, in such manner as that the hands of the operator will not strike against the sides of the mow as the blade is.thrustinto the mow when the knife is used; it being intended that the knife is to be thrust endwise into the mow or stack, and worked back and forth, or up and down longitudinally, like a saw, cutting in its forward or downward stroke, by tile short knives or saw-like teeth set upon the outward edges of the blade. By reason of the curvature given to the blade, these cutting teeth form a stepped series of knives, so to speak, arranged upon the blade, and retreating, one behind the other, from the point to the heel of the blade; and the claim is': "A hay-knife, the blade Whereof is prOVided with suitable handles, and has an outwardly curved edge provided with serrations int>gral with the blade, and sharpened on their edges nearest to the blade-point, set forth."
It is admitted that the defendant manufactures and sells a hayknife, the edge of which is indented or scalloped with a series of semi·oval notches, sharpened throughout their entire edges, so that the knife is equally adapted to cutting when being drawn upward or thrust downward; and the handles are pla,ced,at right angles to the edge of the blade. The original device is described in the specifications as follows:
.. My invention consists of a long, flat piece of steel, in the shape of asword, excepting the handle, withlitqe kni v.es, on, one edge, from the handles to the point, the two handles standing out on one side, with which r thrust the knife perpendicularly into the hay, working it up and down, as I would, a 'saw. '" ... ... I make my knife about one inch in width, and one-fonrthol 'an inch in thickness at the handle,and qnite thin at the point, .andcl'ooked edgewise;like a broadsword, with tootll-like knives, aboqtan inch IOllg on the outer edge or curve,.their points towards the point oftlle knl£e,. 'II ",..... The. purpose of ,the i,nclination of the or little knives, . . . is that they may feed themselves." Andthe'elaim abovede&ocibed, patentw&s for "the irnprov:ed.h.e.Yr of: the Qurved blade,t\-,'.hving
edged serrations, B, and handles, C, C, placed as shown, all substantially as specified." It certainly does not require a very close criticism of the claim of the reissued patent to see that it is made to cover a device not covered by the original patent. The claim o.f the original patent certainly required that the points of the knife-edged serrations or teeth should incline downward, towards the point of the blade, and that the short or lower side of these teeth should form a slightly acute angle with the line of the blade. This form of constructing the teeth, and their relation to the line of the blade, is so clearly indicated by the drawings and model as to leave no doubt as to how the patentee intended to shape his blade, and the teeth upon the blade. The original claim also required the handles to be "placed as shown," and undoubtedly, under this requirement, the patentee was restricted to a knife with the bandIes placed as shown in his drawing and model, and it covered no other kind of knife; while the claim of the reissued patent allows the blade to be provided with "suitable handles," and simply requires that the curved edge shall be provided with serrations, but whoily omits any specific directions as to how the handles shall be placed, and any direction as to the shape of the serrations, or the direction of their points. There is no room for doubt that the claim of the reissued patent would cover a different knife from that covered by the claim of the original. Under the original patent only a knife with serrations of the particular shape shown and described was protecte(l, while the reisolued patent allows any shaped serrations, if they are only integral with the blade, that is formed by cutting or notching into the blade. It was argued with much ingenuity upon the hearing that the original patent covered a knife like that manufactured by the defendant, because the patentee says: "My invention consists of a long, flat piece of steel, in the shape of a sword, excepting the handle, with little knives on the edge, from the handles to the point, and two handles standing out on one side." But this general description of the nature of his invention is not the description of the invention itself, as contained in the specifications further on, and which not only instruct the public how to make a knife like that invented ,by tho patentee, but also give specific directions as to certain characteristics which the knife must possess, among which is that of requiring the points of the teeth to point towards the point of the blade; and the specific reason is given why these teeth should have this inclination. If only the original patent was now in force, it seems to me there could be no doubt that the defendants cOllld manufacture and sell their hay-knife, with the notched or scalloped edge, with impunity, as the defendants' handles are not placed as shown in theoriginal patent, and the points of the teeth do not incline towards thepoint of the blade. These limitations upon his invention in the original patent may have been uncalled for by the state of the art at th&
HAINES V. PECK.
time the original patent was iSflUed, and the inventor may have unnecessarily limited the scope of his device by his description; but the proof shows that he was content with his patent as originally issued for upwards of 11 years, and only obtained this reissue after the defendants' knife had been brought upon the market, and become a dangerous competitor. If the essential feature of Weymouth's invention was the notched blade, and by a reissue complainant oould oover a blade with teeth or serrations of any shape, he might also, with equal propriety, have covered any shaped blade, and could yet reissue so as to cover a straight blade. It therefore seems to me that this reissue oomes clearly within the late oases in the supreme oourt h&lding that a patent cannot be reissued with expanded claims, unless it is done within two years from the date of the original patent. Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354; S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 174; Union Metallic Cartridge Co. v. United States Cartridge Co., p2 U. S. 624.; S. C..5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 475; Torrent Arms Lumber Co. v. Rodgers, 112 U. S. 659; S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 501. . Without examining, then, or definitely passing upon the question of novelty raised in the pleadings and proof, it is sufficient to !:lay that r feel compelled, under the authorities and testimony in the case, to hold this reissue void, upon the ground that by it the original patent has been unduly expanded and enlarged. The bill is dismissed for want of equity.
HAINES V. PECK
and another. I
February 18, 1888.)
(Oircuit Oowrt, 8. D. New York.
PATENTS FOR lNvENTIONS-VOID REISSUE.
Reissued letters patent No. 4,361, of May 2, 1871, to John P. Haines, for improvement in oil-cups, are void because for a different invention from the original, No. 92,820, of July 20, 1869.
SAME-EXCUSE FOR DELAY IN ,APPLYING FOR REISSUE.
The excuse that patentee was ignorant of the laws pertaining to letters patent is wholly insufficient.
On Demurrer. F'redpric H. Betts, for complainant. Charles E. Mitchell and Morris W. Seymour, for defendants. COXE, J. The complainant is the inventor of an improvement in oil.cups, for which letters patent No. 92,820 were granted July 20, 1869, and reissued, No. 4,361, May 2, 1871, 21t months thereafter. The application for the reissue was filed in January, 1871. The deI
Reported by Charles C. Linthicum, Esq., of the Chicago bar.