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.
fendants demur to the bill on the following grounds: First, departure from the original invention; second, unlawful expansion of the claims; third, want of novelty, in view of prior devices, of which the court will take judicial knowledge. In the original the inventor declares:
"The invention consists in providing the shank of the nozzle with a lefthand screw-thread, by which it is secured to the body of the can, and with a right-hand screw-thread to receive the nozzle-covering cap, so that when the cap is removed, there will be no danger of also unscrewing the nozzle."
These words are not found in the reissue. there asserts that his invention consists:
On the contrary, he
"First, in an article made up of three parts never before combined in an oil-can. It cOllsists, secondly, in a peCUliar construction of the body to render it smooth, pliable, and not irksome to the person of the party carrying it."
The claims of the original and reissue are here placed side by side. The italics in each show the matter not found in the other:
"As a neVJ article of manufacture, the pocket oil-can, when the shank, a, of nozzle, B, is provided with the left-hand screw-thTtadjittin.q into a cor1'esponding fema.le sorew-thread in the mouth uf the body, A, and with a right-hand screw-thread, b, adapted to receive the cap, C, in which a similar female sl:rew-th1'ead is furmed, all operating as described, for the purpose specified."
pocket oil-can, formed of a round body, A, nozzle, B, and cap, C, combined as described. "2. In an oil-can adapted to be carried in the pocket, a body, A,formed 01 thin elastic metal rounded into an oval form, and having its sides held apart by an inner spring, a8 specified."
"1. As an article of manufacture, a
It will be observed that in the original the claim is for an oil-can provided with a nozzle, having a left·hand screw-thread, and a cover or cap having a right-hand screw-thread, so that the unscrewing of the cap will not tend to remove the nozzle also. In other words, the original invention was confined, both in the description and the claim, to the reverse screw-threads of the nozzle and the cap. The original .claimed the. screw-threads and nothing else. . The reissue claims everything but the screw-threads. No one would infringe the who did not use the right and left hand screw-threads. On the contrary, anyone using a round.bodied pocket oil-can, with a nozzle and a cap, would infringe the first claim of the reissue, no matter how the nozzle was ,fastened to the can, or the cap to tile nozzle. A can that would infringe the not irtfringethe reissue, and a can that would infringe reissue would not infringe the original. They relate to essentially devices. The ,original is as silent as to the inner spring, thin elastic metal, the oval ·form. and the combination of the rpundbody, the. nozzle,. and; the cap, 8S the reissue is as to the versed screw-threads. In RU8sell v. Dodge, 93 U. S. 460, the court say:
KNAPP V. BENEDICT·
.. And, a reissue could only be granted for the same Invention embraced by the original patent, the specification could not be substantially changed, either by the addition of new matter or the omission of important particulars, so as to change the scope of the invention as originally claimed." .
The specification here is open to both criticisms,-new matter has been added and important particulars omitted. If the inventor had entertained the same idea of the scope and character of his invention in July, 1869, that he did in May, 1871, it is hardly possible that he could have been so unfortunate in making himself understood. No man of ordinary intelligence would retain for 18 months a patent which describes and claims a device bearing hardly a trace of resemblance to his invention. There is no escape from the conclusion that the three-part oil-can was an after-thought; that the object of the patentee in 1871 was to obtain a patent for a different invention from the one described and claimed iJy him in 1869. Regarding the second ground of demurrer it may be said that the IQoment the patentee opened his patent he saw that, both in the description and the claim, he had limited his invention to the screwthreads. It was then his duty to act. It was not a case of an involved or intricate description. If there was a mistake, the veriest tyro in invention must have perceived it. The excuse advanced by the complainant, that he did not discover his error because he was igno!ant of the laws pertaining to letters patent, is wholly insufficient. The case cannot be distinguished from Wollensak v. Reiher, 115 U. S. 96, S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1137, and the other decisions of the supremecourt since January, 1882. The demurrer is sustained.
and another. 1
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Oonnecticut. February 12, 1886.)
PATENTS 1l'OR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT.
To a bill for infringement of letters patent No. 189.233, of Apr118, 1877, to Henry F. Knapp, for means for relievIng stranded vessels, the only defense was non-infringement. The defendant had used thllsame methods for relieving a vessel, which had been in frequent use since 1860 for removing sandy obstructions, and therefore held that he did not infringe.
The court is pe, mitted to avail itself of common knOWledge in regard to matters of science, (BrO'lOn v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37,) and by that knowledge to define the scope of a patent.
In Equity. Edwin. H. Brown, for plaintiff. S.Pickett,.for defendants. ,L
ChlUles c; Linthicuni; ·Esq.,· of the Chieago bar.