REISSUES-Continued.

28. A specification and claim in the original patent having been framed so as to
cover accurately and definitely a certain invention, there was no error which
had arisen through inadvertence or mistake, nor was there any defectiveness
or insufficiency in the specification, and hence there arose no case for a reissue.
*American Diamond Drill Company v. The Sullivan Machine Company, 355.
29. Where a specific invention, complete in itself, was described fully and clearly,
without ambiguity or obscurity, in an original patent, and all the papers in
the file-wrapper show it to have been the intention of the patentee to have
thus limited his invention, a broad construction of the claims of a reissue
would not be justifiable, even though the history of the art shows that such
broader invention should have been claimed in the original patent. Yale
Lock Manufacturing Company v. James, 362.

30. There was no inadvertence, accident, or mistake within the contemplation of
the statute, nor was there the nature of defectiveness or insufficiency meant
by the statute, although the patentee might have fallen into an error of judg-
ment or into an erroneous conclusion of fact. Id.

31. A broader claim made in a reissue nine years after the grant of the original pat-
ent held to be invalid. *The Vacuum Oil Company v. The Buffalo Lubricating
Oil Company (Limited), 377.

32. Where reissue had been held to be invalid because the specification did not con-
tain the full, clear, and exact description of the invention that the law re-
quires, Held that in the light thrown upon the subject-matter of the patent by
the evidence introduced, and by the fuller specification of the last reissue,
the true character of the invention had been fairly brought out, and the re-
issue was sustained. *Schneider v. Pountney, 392.

33. A patent reissue with claims more specifically and clearly describing the inven-
tion is valid, although applied for more than two years after the date of the
original patent, and although the original claims in connection with the
specification were capable of the same construction as the claims of the re-
issued patent. "Hicks v. Otto et al., 405.

34. Hayes v. Seton (12 Fed. Rep., 120) and Hayes v. Dayton (20 Fed. Rep., 690) fol-
lowed, and the eighth claim of Reissue No. 8,674 and the first, second, and
seventh of No. 8,675, which were added after the patents had stood for nearly
nine years without them, held to be void for the reasons given in these former
cases as to other claims. "Hayes v. Bickelhoupt, 413.

35. The first three claims of Reissue No. 8,834 construed and held to be broader
than the original claims, and the reissue not having been applied for until
seven years after the original patent was granted, is controlled by the rulings
in Miller v. Bridgeport Brass Company, (21 O, G., 201), James v. Campbell (Id.,
337), &c., and adjudged to be invalid. *Matthews et al. v. The Iron-Clad Manu-
facturing Company, 443.

36. The granting of a reissue is prima facie evidence of inadvertence, accident, or
mistake, as the granting of original letters is prima facie evidence of inven-
tion. This evidence is not conclusive, nor is the action of the Commissioner
of Patents res adjudicata. *Odell et al. v. Stout et al., 461.

37. REISSUES ENLARGING Claims-Combination-Parts.—The introduction into
reissued letters patent of claims for the patentable parts of the combination
claimed in the original letters does not invalidate the reissued letters, if the
patentee was the first inventor of the patentable parts claimed, although the
original patent was for the combination alone, so described and claimed that
the parts were not to be used separately, but together and simultaneously.
*Id.

REISSUES-Continued.

38. SAME-LIMITS OF RULE. —A patentee may, under proper circumstances, by re-
issue, enlarge his claims so as to make them extend to the limits of his in-
vention, but he is bound by those limits. He may not enlarge the invention.
*Id.

39. SAME-WHEN CLAIMS MAY BE ENLARGED.-Upon the authority of James V.
Campbell and other decisions of the Supreme Court it is clear that the claim
of a patent may be enlarged by a reissue if the patentee move promptly and
no rights of others have intervened, and the delay in this case of six months
is not unreasonable. *Id.

40. SAME

WITHIN WHAT TIME APPLICATION TO BE MADE-WHAT IS A REASON-
ABLE TIME.-There is no rule fixing the precise time within which applica-
tion for a reissue must be made. What is a reasonable time is a question,
when a reissue is attacked, to be decided by the court upon the case presented.
The rule is equitable, and therefore flexible, and to be applied according to
equity. *Id.

41. SAME-REISSUES-EFFECT UPON OTHER CLAIMS OF INVALIDITY OF ONE.-
The invalidity of one of the claims of a reissued patent does not invalidate
the entire reissue, provided the invalid claim was made in good faith. Where
it appears that claims in a reissued patent were made to broaden the inven-
tion, and thereby to cover intermediate inventions or improvements, the
fraud may so vitiate all the claims in the reissued patent that all will be held
to be void; but one claim in a reissue may be void without necessarily invali-
dating the other claims. . *Id.

REJECTED CLAIMS. See Elimination of Claims; Reissues, 4, 21.

REMEDY. See Answer to Bill, 2; Construction of Specifications and Patents, 5; Invalid
Patents; Invention Shown but not Claimed, 3.

RENEWAL OF FORFEITED CASES. See Date of Application in Renewed Cases.
RES ADJUDICATA. See Reissues, 36.

RESERVATION FOR SUBSEQUENT PATENTS. See Abandonment, 3, 4; Disclaimer
under Rule 42; Invention Shown but not Claimed, 1, 2, 3.

It is not intended to sanction the practice of incorporating in patents declarations of
reservation of particular inventions not claimed therein. Such practice is of
doubtful propriety, and ought only to be permitted in exceptional cases and
on considerations not discussed in this decision. Ex parte Derby, 21.
RESTRICTIONS OF CLAIMS.

See Reissues, 4, 5.

RESULTS. See Combinations; Construction of Specifications and Patents, 2; Infringe-
ment, 18, 21; Reissues, 12.

If an inventor is the first to produce a result, he is entitled to all means known at
the date of his patent by which the same result can be produced. *Kuhl v.
the Mueller et al., 315.

REVIEW OF FORMER DECISIONS. See Practice in the Courts, 10, 11; Practice in

the Patent Office, 1, 2; Reissues, 17.

RIGHT TO USE. See Assignments, 4, 5; Infringement, 22; Licenses; Result; Use of
Patented Articles.

ROYALTY. See Damages and Profits.

RULES OF PRACTICE. See Abandonment, 10; Disclaimer under Rule 42; Interference,
1, 2; New Matter; Rehearing, 3.

SALE OF PATENTED ARTICLES. See Damages and Profits, 14, 15; Licenses;
Stamping Patented Articles; Use of Patented Articles.

SCOPE OF AN INVENTION. See Anticipation, 1, 2, 3; Combinations; Construction
of Specifications and Patents, 10.

SCOPE OF A PATENT. See Claims, 1, 2, 4; Inrfingement, 30; Result.

SECOND APPLICATION. See Abandonment, 3; Invention Shown but not Claimed;

Reservation for Subsequent Patent.

SECOND REISSUES. See Reissues, 11, 15, 32.

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. See Appeals to the Secretary of the Interior.
SEPARATE APPLICATION. See Joinder of Inventions.

SEPARATE INVENTIONS. See Combinations; Infringement, 21; Interfering Patents.
SEPARATE PARTS. See Reissues, 37.

SEPARATE PATENTS. See Division of Application; Non-Patentability; Reservation
for Subsequent Patent; Subsequent Patents for same Invention.

SERVICE OF PROCESS. See Jurisdiction.

Under the statutes of Pennsylvania a foreign corporation which transacts business
in that State through its authorized agents is amenable to suit there, and
service of process upon its agents is good service upon it. *Hussey Manufact-
uring Company v. William Deering & Co., et al., 286.

SETTLEMENTS. See Damages and Profits, 12.

SIMILAR DEVICES. See Analogous Devices.

SINGLE INVENTION. See Construction of Specifications and Patents, 7; Joinder of
Inventions.

SPECIFICATIONS. See Claims, 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8; Construction of Specifications and Pat-
ents, 3; Drawings; Reissues, 13, 19, 20, 27, 28; Technical Terms.

1. The capacity of the inventor or attorney to understand the invention described
should not be the standard by which to measure the ability of others skilled
in the art to comprehend the specification. Ex parte Kerr, 27.

2. Where the gist of the invention lies in the construction and arrangement of cer-
tain parts, it is not permissible in the claim to mention the parts in a general
manner and then add words of reference to the specification as a definition of
such construction and arrangement. Id.

3. The description of an invention by a specification alone is not now, as formerly,
all-sufficient; but the description must be supplemented by a specific and
well-defined claim to the part, improvement, or combination which the in-
ventor regards as his property. The aim, end, purpose of the specification
under the present statute is to describe the invention songht to be covered by
the patent, and the manner of making, constructing, and using the same.
The aim, the end, the purpose of the claim is to point out particularly and dis-
tinctly define the invention to be secured to the individual. The claim is the
measure of the patent, and the day has passed when the courts will search
through the specification for information which it is the very office of the
claim to impart. Ex parte Holt, 43.

SPECIFIC CLAIMS. See Construction of Claims, 1; Interference, 2; Subsequent Patents
for Same Invention.

STAMPING PATENTED ARTICLES.

When it was difficult to stamp the patented article "patented" on account of its
small size, but the packages containing sneh articles were stamped, it is beld
that the statute was sufficiently complied with. *Sessions v. Ramadka et al.,
340.

STATE OF THE ART. See Claims, 2, 3; Infringement, 11.

STATE STATUTES. See Service of Process.

STATUTES. See Construction of Statutes.

SUBSEQUENT PATENTS FOR SAME INVENTION. See Abandonment, 3, 4; Diris-
ion of Applications, 5, 6; Infringement, 28; Invention Shown but not Claimed,
3, 4, 5, 6; Reservation for Subsequent Patents.

1. It is against the spirit and letter of the law to grant au independent patent to
an applicant for an invention shown and described, though not claimed, in
a prior patent issued to the same person. *Marvin v. Lillie, 178.

2. The pretext that no claim was made to the invention in the original patent will
not avail, since the law provides for the amending of patents by enlargement
or restriction, or even by division of the subject-matter. *Id.

SUBSEQUENT PATENTS FOR SAME INVENTION—Continued.

3. COMBINATION OF SEPARATE DEVICES-SUB-COMBINATION.-The fact that a de
vice comprising several patentable elements has been patented as a whole
will not prevent the patentee from afterward securing a patent for a com-
bination of any number of the elements less than the whole, provided he ap-
plies for it before the lesser combination has been two years in public use.
*Cahn v. Wong Town On, 179.

4. When a person invents the subject-matter of a narrow claim upon a certain en-
tity, in the same moment of time and as the same sense-concept, he invents
that of a broader claim thereon; hence a second patent to him with claim to
subject-matter which comprehends the claim of his previous patent is void as
being anticipated in such previous patent, and so the allowance of applica-
tions with claims to specific devices or "species," while an application con-
taining a "generic" claim covering those species is in controversy or with-
held, is condemned. Ex parte Holt, 43.

SUBSEQUENT PATENTS WITH BROADER CLAIMS. See Interference, 2.
SUBSTITUTION OF MATERIAL. See Infringement, 1.

SUBSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL CONTRIVANCES. See Change of Structure.
SUBSTITUTION OF PARTS See Infringement, 5.

SUFFICIENCY OF AFFIDAVITS. See Abandonment, 8; Answer to Bill, 1; Burden of
Proof.

SUIT FOR ANNULMENT OF A PATENT. See Invalid Patents, 1, 2; Invalidity of
Patents.

SUITS FOR DAMAGES AFTER EXPIRATION OF PATENT. See Damages and
Profits, 11.

SUITS FOR INFRINGEMENT. See Costs of Suit; Damages and Profits, 10, 16; In-
junction; Jury Trials; Practice in the Courts, 6.

SUITS FOR LICENSE-FEES. See Licenses.

SUITS IN EQUITY. See Answer to Bill; Bill in Equity; Burden of Proof; Damages
and Profits, 9, 10; Invalidity of Patents; Parties to Suit; Practice in the Courts.
SUPPLEMENTAL BILL. See Bill in Equity.

SUPREME COURT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. See Jurisdiction, 2, 3.
TECHNICAL TERMS.

1. By the words "persons skilled in the art," as used in the statute, is not meant
persons who excel their fellows in particular arts or sciences, but merely
men who have ordinary or fair information in that particular line. Ex parte
Kerr, 27.

2. Such expressions as "means" and "mechanism" are generally objectionable, as
being indefinite. They are objectionable as employed in this case. They are
always objectionable if, by their use, the claim itself does not distinguish
what is believed to be new. But it is not intended to intimate that any par-
ticular expression or form of words is always to be excluded from a claim-
that, for example, such expressions as "means" and "mechanism" may never
be employed. On the contrary, if these words, coupled with the requisite
words of qualification, ever express the exact invention, or refer to merely
adjunctive devices readily understood, they are not objectionable. Compre-
hensive terms and phrases to include mechanical equivalents are quite proper
(see ex parte Demming, 26 O. G., 1207) if they are clear-that is, provided they
distinctly express the invention and are warranted by the specification. Ex
parte Holt, 43.
TERM OF PATENT.

See Limitation of United States Patent by Foreign Patents Pre-

riously Granted.
TERRITORIAL RIGHTS. See Licenses.

TESTIMONY. See Witnesses.

In cases where a chaos of oral testimony exists it is usually found that the judg-
ment is convinced by a few leading facts and indicia outlined so clearly that
they cannot be obscured by prevarication or the aberrations of memory. Held
that facts and indicia so cogent and persuasive are found in this case that the
testimony of a myriad of witnesses cannot prevail against them. * American
Bell Telephone Company v. The People's Telephone Company et al., 475.
TITLE. See Damages and Profits, 13; Practice in the Courts, 7.

TITLE TO PATENT. See Assignments, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7; Employé of the Patent Office, 1, 2,
3; Licenses; Practice in the Courts, 7.

1. From a comparison of the sections of the statutes relating to patents it is made
clear that a patent-right, like any other personal property, is understood by
Congress to vest in the executors and administrators of the patentee, if he
has died without having assigned it. "The Shaw Relief-Valve Company v. The
City of New Bedford, 289.

2. "Legal representatives" in the patent act means executors or administrators. *Id.
TRADE-MARKS. See Copyright; Labels.

1. TRADE-MARKS-A TRADE-MARK MAY BE CONVEYED WITH THE PROPERTY
WITH WHICH IT 18 ASSOCIATED.-As an abstract right, apart from the article
manufactured, a trade-mark cannot be sold, the reason being that such trans-
fer would be productive of fraud upon the public, but in connection with the
article produced it may be bought and sold like other property. *Morgan et al.
v. Rogers, 157.

2. TRADE-MARKS WILL PASS UNDER BILL OF SALE WITHOUT SPECIFIC MEN-
TION. For a trade-mark to pass under a bill of sale it is not necessary that it
should be specifically mentioned. If a trade-mark is an asset, as it is, there
is no reason why it should not pass under the term "assets" in an instru-
ment which conveys the entire partnership property. *Id.

3. A trade-mark is a sign or symbol primarily confined exclusively to the indica-
tion of the origin or ownership of the goods to which it is attached, and it
may be composed of any name, device, line, figure, mark, word, letter, nu-
meral, or combination or arrangement of any or all of these, which will serve
the sole purpose of a trade-mark, and which no other person can adopt or use
with equal truth. Avery & Sons v. Meikle & Co., 515.

4. Terms which designate merely the name, quality, kind, size, number, or ele-
ments of an article, or have become its proper appellation, or that merely
describe it or direct the mode of its use, or purely generic or geographical
terms, and the necessary and common uses in which the English language
and Arabic numerals are employed by the people to express the truth, their
ideas and feelings, are common property which all may use, but which none
can appropriate exclusively to himself as a trade-mark. ‡Id.

5. A trade-mark becomes the exclusive property of one only when he has, prior to
any one else, appropriated and used it to indicate the origin, ownership, and
quality of an article to which it is attached. Its value rests on reputation
and on its implied guaranty that the article is of a certain quality. Its ob-
ject is to prevent one person from selling his goods as those of another of es-
tablished reputation, to the injury of that other. Id.

6. When plaintiff shows that he has adopted a legal trade-mark, that it has been
infringed, and that actual, probable, or possible damages have or may result
from its infringement, he is entitled to relief usually in the form of an injunc-
tion and an account of profits.

Id.