IHs sufficient to say-that none of them, it is heHeved, are ''dii'eCtlyib point; but,so far as they al'eapplicable to the facts herein, their'prinCiples have been embodied in this opinion. This may be considered a hard case, in some particulars, on the relator, who evider.ltly had no intention of violating the laws of the state of Mississippi in; arming himself with a pistol; but that cClUsideration touches the merits of the defense inihe state court, rather than its jurisdiction, and cannot influence this court in habeas corpus proceedings. For the foregoing reasbns the judgment of the district judge is reversed, with directrons to take such further proceedings as shall be in accordance with law, and not inconsistent with this o}'inion. Let an "order be.entered ·
· ; I
, PRIESTI.EY t'. MONTAGL'E.
(Ctrdutt Court, E. D.Ptnmywanta. May B,1888:.)
1I'on INVENTIONS-IN'FlUNOEMENT,-RIBBED FABRICS A specificatip,lj. of No, 312,220, defined the Invention, as IS fabrlo ribbed 'on both facel!; the ri'bs on both fnces bein g formed of oneand the same set of body warps, and showed throughout :that the object of complainant's Invention was to make toe fabric ri,bbed and iigljres, on both faces; l'ibbed and mottled, fabrics were old., Held, the \vards "set; of' body warps" signify all the warps of tl1nt description,upon the beam ; and a fabriaconsisting.of facingwarpslying outside sturrIng wefts, Andfol'millg ridges on opposite sides of these stuffing wefts. the ridges and depressions'being opposite t'oeach other, is an Infringement.
One joint patentees whose testimony in chief related to a different subject, testified 'on cross-examination, that he simply told his co-patentee "to make the carpet the same on both sideR." Held insufficient evidence to ovel'come the presumpI 1;Ion of tile patent that was joint.
''''J ,of patent, No., 312, 220, for ribbed ,:fabrics. Defenchmt's of facing W!lrps lying On opposite sides of two picks of forming ridges on opposite sides of these stuffing and' l;inder wefts exterior to the facing warps, runbetween:the:ridges and hound down therein by bindning in the ing Wl\rps, wMch werehelcl in position by binding wefts, two picks of the stufl'er weftalternative"w)th two picks of the binder weft. ,' , Shoemaker Leona-rd Fletclte:r and ],lunnan Sheppard, for complainant. ,Stru.,wbridge Taylor, for respondent.
BVTLER, J. 'The complainap,t'8 patent is foran improvement in car'petS, etc., the fahric being figured on both faces. The specifications say: ,.' . , , .. I'n OUl' improved fabric thebQdy, warps and filling wefts for the ribs are
combined with binder warps andbipder werts in such that a fabrio 'is produced which is ribbed on both faces, with the ribs on theonefaceoppo. site to the grooves between the ril:Js on the other face, the ribs on both faces being formed by one and tile same set of body warps. It is this feature which
PRIESTLEY V. MONTAGUE.
characterizes our invention. The binder wefts serve to ceene the ribs and to hold them in place, and the bi oder warps. in acidition t9 their function as binders, serve to determine on which of the two faces of the fabric the ribs shall appear, the ribs being a1 ways on that face of the fabric opposite to the binder warps."
The specifications, considered throughout, show quite distinctly thnt the object of complainant's invention was the construction of a carpet, or other fabric, ribbed and figured on both faces,-the figures being produced by the method of weaving as described. Such a fabric had not previously been constructed. Ribbed and mottled fabrics are old; but they have no material resemblance to the complainant's manufacture. Construing the claim of the patent in conformity with this view, there is no room we believe to doubt its novelty,-that the claim, read in connection with the specifications, will bear this construction, is, in our judgment, quite clear. The langllage "the ribs on both faces being formed by one and the same set of body warps,"-which has given rise to this controversy,-might doubtless be construed as the respondent construes it, if severed from its proper connection, with other language of the When read in this connection, however, and especially in view of the inventor's object, (the construction of a fabric ribbed and figured on both faces by the method of weaving,) it will not bear any other than the one before suggested. The fabric described could not be woven according to the patent, with a different construction of this language. Evidently a "set of body-warps," as the expression is here employed signifies all the warps of that description upon the beam; and the otper language above quoted in this connection, signifies that the threads of this set of warps, manipulated by the jaquard so as to be used interchangeably on either side of the fabric, serve to form both faces, and to make them correspond in figure and in all other respects. Any other construction would do violence to the manifest intention of the inventors, in using the language, and would defeat their object by rendering the patent valueless. The defense that Priestley and Kunkler were not joint ir,ventors, should not be sustained in the absence of unquestionable proof that it is well founded. Such defenses are purely technical and should not be favored. The only evidence appealed to was obtained irregularly, by the cross-examination of Mr. Priestley, whose testimony in chief related to a different subject. It was objected to at thetime, and the court is now asked to strike it out. Possibly we should do so. Allowing it to stH,nd, however, it is insufficient to overcome the presumption arising from the joint application and the patent. 'It is meager and indefinite, or, rather, equivocal. He says he and Kunkler invented the fabric jointly, but further says he simply told Kunkler "to make the carpet the same on both sides." What does this last expression mean? The witness was not asked. Evidently he has not given us all that transpired between him and Kunkler on the subject. What had taken place? How far had they proceeded when he told Kunkler to make it the SHme on both sides? Certainly it would be unsafe to overturn the patent upon such evidence.' The respondent's fabric com-
FEDl<JRAL REPORTER, vol.
plained ofis identical with the complainant's in appeamnce, is substantially so in construction, and in our judgment is manufactured byadopting tqe essentialfeatures of the complainant's invention. We have said enough to indicate the grounds of our decision, and it would be unprofitable to enlarge upon the subject. A decree must be entered for the complainant.
V. SPRING VALLEY COAt Co.
(Cil'cuit Court, N. D. llHnois.
January 26, 1891.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIoNS-lsSVE TO ASSIGNEE-PRESUMPTION.
Where a patent has been issued to the inventor in part, and in part to one named as his assignee, it will be presumed that the assigonmentwas properly made and entered of record in the patent-office, as required by Rev. St. U. S. § 4895, providing that patents may be issueq. or reissued to the assignee of the inventor, but that the assignment must be first entered of record in the patent-office.
Where the patentee of an article has become insane, the reissue of the patent may be made in the name of his guardian, though the law (Rev. St. U. S. § 4916) in terms only authorizes a reissue to the original patentee, or his assigns, or, if he be dead, to his executor or administrator; and the reissue would be valid if issued to the insane patentee himself. 8. Sum. Even if the reissue of a patent to the guardian of an insane patentee were invalid, because the law does not in terms provide for reissue to the guardian, no one but the patentee could complain.
SAME-REISSVETO GUAItDIA."r OF INSANE PATENTEE.
Where a patentee of an invention, after the issue of his patent, has become of poor health, and so mentally deranged as to be unable to attend to business, and afterwards insane, a reissue of ,the patent to his guardian two years and seven months after issue of the patent is not invalid, on the ground of laches in not applying for the reissue Within two years.
The reissue of a patent for an invention is not invalid on the ground that the specifications have been amended and the claims expanded beyond the original patent, wherethecbangesconsist merely in describing what was suggested in theorig,inal drawings and specifications, or in explaining the functions or effect of the mechanism. Reissued letters patent No. 9,408, October 12, 1880, to SarahJ. Harrison, guardian, etc., (original patent No. 198,610, December 25, 1b77, to Jonathan W. Harrison, etc.,) covering a coal-mining machine for nnder-cutting and shearing in, or producing cuts or excavations preparatory to wedging out or displacing coal, are not void for want of novelty.
Reissued letters patent No. 9,439, November 2,1880, to Sarah J. Harrison, guardian, etc., (original patent No. 219,090, September 2, 1879,to Jonathan. W. Harrison, etc.,) for a mining-machine, conSIsting of a cylinder, mounted on two wheels, and connected directly with their axle, so that it may be oscillated by the oscillation of the. axle, for the purpose of drilling and cutting in mining coal, are not void for want of novelty. .
SAME-HANDLES TO MACHINE.
Letters patent No. September 28,1880, to George D. Whitcomb and others, fOf improvements in mining-machines, and consisting of the application of bandIes to a mining-machine by Which t,o manipUlate and move it, are void for want of novelty. in view of the, prior use of &\ilch handles on plows.
In Equity. Coburn & Thacher, for complainants.