11m
'l'EDERAL:
58.
i':'
to ith.e rim'(Jfraioyc1e; ,emboc!lied'm(claams :4 and ;5, of' the reissued pate:Qt;; and"whlle i he' does p.ot swe&' as ,to his intenItion, I think it, suffioiently appeltl.'$'hm' the· original !{l8ltent.that he :therein intended to seoure tohims.e1f, said invention; ! and that it, fuvther appears from the evidence that ,the errors inthfHlpecifications arose from inadvertence, accident, or mistake, and: without any fraudulent or deceptive intention. , I have notol'erlooked the factitha.t in said claims in the reissue the pro'OOction,strips of caoutchouc dQ:notappear, but I do not regard them as el&sentiaJ., parts of the combination. They do not involve inventive skill, nel' do they affect the operation of the thing invented, except ito perhaps prolong its life; and, while the arrangement in defenda.nt's tire for 'this purpose, whereby the f1.apsof the nonexpansible jacket are doubled atthe:poin'l; of contact with the rim, seems to me tOiba an impl'Ovement upon complainant's arrangement, yet this improvement is on!yreffected by an appropriation 'ofcomplainant's invention, the meaID$ of securely and:firmly maintaining the tire in poSitiononthe,nmotthewheel.Allthe authorities are to the effect tkatwhere, under the application for a reissue merely seeks,to'make the·claim broader. and mote comprehensive, it may be.granted,'inorder to secur.e to the patentee his actual invention,provided·,he, Mil not been guilty of any inexcusable laches, and no adverse,rightB,have,accrued.Miller 1'. BraSs Co., 104: U. S. 352; James1'. Campbell, Id861;Topliff '1'. 'Topliff, 59 O. G. 1261, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 825; Rob. Pat. 693. In no inexcusable lache" on the part of the complainant. Ii asSOOD' jag the defects were disCovered by him, he used such' diligence to' correct them that,although he resided in a counilrt'y; and his 'counseVl'esided here,. his application was illedin On Januarr24,.1891,-41-2months after the date of the' origiralpatent. That; no cll'cumstance has occurred during this 'time' tha.twould make ,the.' reissue harshly or unjustly' to this' !defendant is abundantly established by the evidence. The defendant had not invested a dollar in the business at the date of the grant of the reissue; , did not obtain a license from the owners oftheThoIIUlB patents, the Thomas Company, until six weeks after the reissue', was granted. 'ilie Thomas Company had never settled on any form of til'e as that which they wotIld offer fol' sale, and they had never sold a single tire. Infringement has not been seriously, and, cannot be Imccessfully, denied. Plaintiff's and defendant's tires, when completed, are substantially, the same. , Let'there bea decree for an iiljunction and an accounting. PETTIBONE et a1. STANFORD. (Cil'cuWCdurt of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. October 26, 1892.) EXTENT OF CLAIM , , PRIOR STATE OF AnT-IN-
v.
,
I.
PATENTS 1l'OnlNvENTIONS FRINGEMENT;
Claim 8 ofletterspatent No. 245.684, Issued August 16,1881, to Thomas J. JeDu,e, O,l1j\rles S,.BI,umon, for an ,i,m,'prO,v,emeut in lifting jacks, describes, the combillatiOr;1. among other "the standard, A, provided w.ith tbe arms; V,' '.'*', .. collar, C, having the trunnions, 0, working in journals at
STARLING tl. WEIR PLOW dO.'
119
the of the arms. V. to Held that, in view of the prior state of the art. the claim is limited to the specific named, and is notinfringed by II jack having II collar integral with the standard, and incapable of any movement. 48 Fed. Rep. 302, affirmed. 2. SAME-ExTENT OF CLAIMS.
Claims cannot be enlarged by constructiou. 48 Fed. Rep. 302. affirmed.
Appeal from· the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District· of lllinois. In Equity. Suit by <Mulliken & Co. against Arthur L. Stanford for infringement of patent. Bill dismissed. See 48 Fed. Rep. 302. Complainants appeal. Affirmed. Dyrenforth & Dyrenforth, for appellants. Geo. Payson and L. L. Bond, for appellee. Before WOODS, Circuit Judge,and BUNN; District Judge. PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from is affirmed, upon the grounds stated in the opinion of the court below. v. WEIR PLOW CO. et aL (Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. 1. October 27, 1892.) PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-PATENTABILITy-NOVELTy-SULKY PLOWS.
The first claim of letters patent No. 154.293, issued Allgust 18, 1874, to Wil· Iiam Starling, for an improvement in sulky plows, consisting of thecombi· , nation of '" crank bar with the plow beam, lever. and axle, so that the horses are made to raise the plow out of the ground. is void for want of novelty. 49 Fed. Rep. 637, affirmed. SAME-RES ADJUDICATA.
2.
A decision that a patent which has three claims. covering different features of thedevjce, is not void for want of novelty, does not render the question of novelty res adjudicata when a single one of the claims is attacked in a subsequent suit for want of novelty, and proof is introduced in such subsequent suit that was not offered in the former suit. 49 Fed. Rep. 637, affirmed.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the South· ern Division of the Northern District of lllinois. Suit by William Starling against the Weir Plow Company and William Weir to restrain an alleged infringement of a patent. The bill was dismis!\ed for want of equity. 49 Fed. Rep. 63i. Com· plainant appeals. Afllrmed. H. W. Wells, for appellant. Bond, Adams & Pickard, for appellees. Before GRESHAM and WOODS, Circuit Judges, and JENKINS, District Judge. PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from is affirmed, upon the grounds stated in the opinion of the court below, reported in 49 Fed. Rep. 637.