REISSUES-Continued.

11. DENCHFIELD'S REISSUE PATENT, No. 4,712, JANUARY 17, 1872, COMPARED WITH
ITS ORIGINAL, No. 19,984, APRIL 20, 1858, AND PRONOUNCED VALID FOR
ORIGINAL-NOT INFRINGED.-In a patent for an improvement in cooling and
drying meal during its passage from the millstones to the bolts, the claim was
for the arrangement and combination of a fan producing a suction-blast, the
meal-chest, a spout forming a communication between the fan and the meal-
chest, a dust-room above to catch the lighter part of the meal thrown up-
ward by the current of air, a rotating spirally-flanged shaft in the meal-chest
conveying the meal to the elevator, a similar shaft in the dust-room convey.
ing the meal-dust to the elevator, and the elevator taking the meal to the
bolts. Within four months before the expiration of the patent it was reis-
sued and extended with two elaims, the one a repetition of the original claim,
and the other for the combination of the fan, the communicating spout, the
meal-chest with the conveying-shaft in it, and the elevator, but omitting the
dust-room with its conveying-shaft. Held that the reissue was valid for the
old claim only, and was not infringed by the use of the fan, spout, meal-chest
with its conveying-shaft, elevator, and dust-room, without any conveying-
shaft in the dust-room for other mechanism performing the same function. *Id.
12. REISSUES-INFRINGEMENT-PRACTICE IN THE COURTS.-Defendants may read
the original patent in evidence at the trial, though not put in before the ex-
aminer, in order to show that the reissue is for a different invention in fact
from the original, if the evidence cannot surprise the plaintiffs. Knapp et
al., v. Shaw et al., 302.

13. REISSUE-ENLARGEMENT OF CLAIMS-VALIDITY.-The unwarrantable expan-
sion of the claims in a reissue defeats its validity. *Nye v. Allen, 304.
14. REISSUES-PERMISSIBLE Changes FROM THE ORIGINAL.-If in the reissue the
description of the parts had only been more full and particular, or if distinct
functions of the parts not before mentioned had been newly set forth, or
functions before mentioned had been wholly omitted, so long as the devices
and their mode of operation, as described, remained the same the reissue
might not be voided for showing a different invention. *Doane & Wellington
Manufacturing Company v. Smith, 328.

15. SAME-SAME.-The law provides for and allows reissues for corrections, but not
for alterations. *Id.

16. REISSUE-ORIGINAL CLAIM VALID.-The invalidity of a claim in a reissue does
not impair the validity of a claim in the original patent, which is repeated
and separately stated in the reissued patent. Gage v. Herring, 23 O. G.,
2037. *Schillinger v. Greenway Brewing Company, 341.

17. CLAIMS INVOLVING ABANDONMENT OF PRINCIPLE OF ORIGINAL INVENTION IN-
VALID.-Where the claims of a reissued patent involve a total abandonment
of the principles which are stated in the original patent to be those of the
invention, the reissued patent is invalid. Yale Lock Co. v. Scovill Manufact-
uring Co. (18 Blatchf. C. C. R., 248), cited and distinguished. Parker & Whip-
pie Company et al. v. Yale Lock Company et al., 421.

18. REISSUE-INADVERTENCE, ACCIDENT, OR MISTAKE.-The cancellation of certain
claims in au original application does not constitute inadvertence, accident,
or mistake within the contemplation of section 4916, Revised Statutes, and
an application for reissue, the purpose of which is to renew such claims, can-
not be allowed. Ex parte Hatchman, 99.

19. OATH OF INVENTOR—APPLication for Reissue of Patent-Not ReqUIRED
BY STATUTE.-The words "inoperative or invalid" in the statute authorizing
reissues (4916, R. S.) mean inoperative or invalid in whole or in part, and con-
sequently the words "not fully inoperative" conform to the true intent of the
law, if the law required an oath, which it does not. *Hartshorn v. Eagle Shade
Roller Company et al., 470.

REISSUES-Continued.

20. SAME-SAME-NONE REQUIRED AS TO INVALIDITY OF ORIGINAL. PATENT.-In the
matter of reissues there is no law requiring the applicant to take any oath
on the subject of the invalidity of the original patent. *Id.

21. REISSUES-LACHES-ENLARGEMENT OF ORIGINAL CLAIM.-A delay of more
time than would be reasonably sufficient to read the patent and ascertain its
need of amendment should be accounted laches in a case where enlargement
of a claim is the only amendment. *Id.

REJECTED APPLICATIONS. See Appeals, 1.

REJECTION. See Amendmenta, 6; Estoppel; Public Use, 1.

RELEASE. See Damages and Profits, 5.

REMEDY. See Appeals, 1; Applications, 6; Construction of Specifications and Patents, 7 ;
Infringement, 15.

REMEDY AT LAW. See Agreement to Assign, 3.

RES ADJUDICATA. See Disclaimers, 2; Injunction, 8; Interferences, 4.

RESERVATION FOR SUBSEQUENT PATENT.-See Applications, 6, 7, 8, 9; Patent-
ability, 14.

RESULTS. See Anticipation; Applications, 5; Combination, 2, 5; Infringement, 5, 16, 17.
RETROACTION. See Practice in the Patent Office, 2.

RIGHT TO MANUFACTURE. See Contracts, 4,5; Injunction, 11; Licenses, 1.
RIGHTS OF MARRIED WOMEN. See Assignments, 6; Title to Patent, 4.

RIGHT TO USE. See Assignments, 2,8; Constitutional Protection of Inventions, 1, 2, 3;
Damages and Profits, 4,5; Infringement, 1,7,9; Licenses, 4, 6.

1. SHERIFF'S SALE-PURCHASER'S RIGHTS TO USE PATENTED MACHINE.-The rule
that a purchaser at a sheriff's sale succeeds to the beneficial rights of the de-
fendant in the execution to the property sold applies to the case of patented
machinery, and whatever right to use the patented machine a defendant in
execution may have passes with the machine when sold by the sheriff to his
vendee. Wilder v. Kent et al., 188.

2. A MONOPOLY SECURED BY LETTERS PATENT CEASES UPON EXPIRATION OF THE
PATENTED TERM.-Whatever was patented to the inventor and enjoyed by
him and those operating under him during the term of the patent belongs to
the public and is free to all at the expiration of the term.
Sewing Machine Company v. Frame, 409.

Willcox & Gibbs

ROYALTY. See Constitutional Protection of Inventions, 1, 2, 3; Damages and Profits; In-
junction, 4; Jurisdiction of United States Courts, 1, 2; Licenses.

RULES OF PRACTICE. See Amendments, 3, 8;
1,5,6,7,8,9; Practice in the Patent Office;

cation.

Designs, 7; Evidence, 2; Interference,
Priority of Invention, 1; Void Appli-

Rule 15 of the Rules of Practice, directing that caveats and pending applications
shall be preserved in secrecy, is such a rule as the statute authorizes the De-
partment to make, and for that reason has the force and effect of law. Ex
parte Pfandler, 1.

SALE OF PATENTED ARTICLES. See Assignments, 2; Damages and Profits, 1, 2, 5, 0
Infringement, 9, 15; Parties to Suit, 1; State Licenses, 1.

SALE OF PATENTED MACHINE BY ORDER OF COURT. See Right to Use, 1.
SALE OF PATENT RIGHTS. See State Licenses, 2.

6;

SCOPE OF AN INVENTION. See Construction of Specifications and Patents; Purtic-

ular Patents: 85, Wintergerst.

SCOPE OF A PATENT. See Interferences, 1; Invalid Patents; Validity of Patents, 1.
SCOPE OF PATENT LIMITED TO CLAIM. See Construction of Specifications and
Patents, 2, 6, 7; Disclaimers, 3.

SECOND APPLICATION. See Applications, 6, 7, 8, 9.

SECOND INVENTOR. See Patentability, 4, 8, 12; Priority of Invention, 2, 10, 13.

SECRET ARCHIVES. See Access to the Files and Records of the Patent Office; Rules of
Practice.

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. See Appeals; Appeals to the Secretary Void;
Patents, 1, 2, 3.

SEPARATE APPLICATIONS. See Applications, 2, 3, 7, 8; Designs, 8.

SEPARATE INVENTIONS.

Application, 1, 2.

See Applications, 4, 5; Different Inventions; Divisional

SEPARATE PARTS. See Combinations; Construction of Specifications and Patents, 2.
SEPARATE PATENTS. See Invalid Patents.

SERVICE OF PROCESS.

INFRINGEMENT-PERSONAL LIABILITY FIXED BY ANSWER-Defendant OWNER OF
ALL THE STOCK of CorporatioN SERVED.—In a suit for the infringement of
a patent against a corporation, L., president, was named as a defendant, but
was not served. An appearance was entered for the defendants without nam-
ing them. L. signed and swore to the answer as one of the defendants. L.
owned all the stock of the corporation. Held, that L. was liable personally
for the infringement of the patent. *Smith v. Standard Laundry Machinery
Company, 427.

SHERIFF'S SALE OF PATENTED MACHINE. See Right to Use, 1.
SIGNATURES. See Assignments, 3; Void Application; Void Patents, 1, 3.
SIMILAR DEVICES. See Infringement, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 17, 20; Interferences,

2, 14; Non-Invention, 2, 3, 4; Particular Patents: 2, Backus; 16, 17, 18, 19,
Doane and McKee; 25, 26, Hall; 27, Hammerschlag; 32, 33, 34, Hoffheins; 41,
Jackson; 43, Lemman; 54, Parker; 59, 60, Richards; 63, Richardson; 65,
Schaeffer; 67, Siemens; 77, Todd; 81, White; Patentability, 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12.
SINGLE INVENTION. See Divisional Application, 1, 2; Invalid Patents.
SPECIAL ACTS. See Assignments, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10.

SPECIFICATIONS. See Amendments; Applications; Construction of Specifications and
Patents; Practice in the Patent Office, 9, 12; Void Application.

MODIFICATIONS SHOULD BE ILLUSTRATED IF DESCRIBED.-The applicant should
either describe or illustrate the various ways in which his invention is carried
out, so that at least persons skilled in the art may know how to make and
use it, or he should strike out of his specification 'matter descriptive of the
modified forms of the invention. Ex parte Howe, 61.

SPECIFIC CLAIMS. See Construction of Specifications and Patents, 7; Disclaimers, 3,
5,6; Interferences, 2.

STATE COURTS. See Jurisdiction of the United States Courts, 1, 2; Practice in the
Courts, 5.

STATE LICENSE.

1. ORDINANCE REGULATING PEDDLING IN CITY.-A city ordinance prescribed a tax
upon peddlers, &c. The defendant was convicted of selling from door to
door, without a license, a patented article. Held that the patent did not pro-
hibit the municipality from imposing such tax. People v. Russell, 487.

2. SALE OF PATENT RIGHTS-A LAW OF NEBRASKA UNCONSTITUTIONAL.-The act
of February 18, 1873, entitled “An act to regulate the sale of patent rights in
the State of Nebraska, and prevent frauds connected therewith," is in conflict
with the Constitution and laws of the United States and void. Wilch v.
Phelps, 489.

STATE OF THE ART. See Non-Inventions, 1; Patentability, 13.
STATE STATUTES. See Assignments, 3, 5, 6; State Licenses, 2.
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS-PROVISIONS OF SECTION 721 REVISED STATUTES APPLY

TO PATENT CASES.-State statutes of limitations are applicable to actions at
law for the infringement of a patent. *Hayden v. The Oriental Mills, 350.
STATE TAX. See State Licenses, 1.

STATUTES. See Construction of Statutes; Evidence, 2; Foreign Patents; State Statutes.

STATUTORY BAR. See Interferences, 6, 7; Public Use, 10.

STRANGERS TO THE RECORD. See Access to the Files and Records of the Patent

Office.

SUBSEQUENT PATENTS. See Applications, 6, 7, 8, 9; Patentability, 14; Priority of

Invention, 13.

SUBSTITUTION OF MATERIAL. See Infringement, 16, 17; Interferences, 2.
SUBSTITUTE SPECIFICATIONS. See Void Application.

SUBSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL CONTRIVANCES. See Change of Structure.
SUBSTITUTION OF PARTS. See Infringement, 4; Patentability, 10.
SUGGESTIONS TO AN INVENTOR. See Priority of Invention, 9, 10.
SUIT AGAINST GOVERNMENT OFFICERS. See Jurisdiction.

SUITS AT LAW. See Bill in Equity, 2; Contracts, 5; Parties to Suit, 1.
SUIT FOR DAMAGES AFTER EXPIRATION OF PATENT. See Infringement, 9.
SUITS FOR INFRINGEMENT. See Construction of Specifications and Patents, 7; Con-
tracts, 2; Defenses, 3; Damages and Profits, 5; Disclaimers, 5; Infringement, 15;
Injunction; Interferences; Practice in the Courts; Title to Patent, 3.

SUITS UPON CONTRACTS. See Agreement to Assign; Assignments; Contracts; Juris-
diction of United States Courts; Practice in the Courts.

SUPPLEMENTAL BILL. See Injunction, 3.

TECHNICAL TERMS. See Assignments, 1.

TESTIMONY. See Evidence, 1; Interferences, 3, 10; Motion to Reopen,.

TITLE TO PATENTS. See Assignments, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; Constitutional Protection of
Inventions; Injunction, 6; Interference, 4, 11; Licenses, 1, 2.

1. LETTERS PATENT TO ASSIGNEE-LEGAL TITLE.-Letters Patent having been
issued directly to the defendant as assignee, it acquired the legal title.
*Perkins v. The United States Electric Light Company, 322.

2. NON-PAYMENT OF PURCHASE-MONEY-VACATION OF TRANSFER.-Equity will
enforce a lien for purchase-money, but it does not vacate a transfer because
the purchase-money has not been paid. *Id.

3. DEATH OF PATENTEE-DEVISEE AND LEGATEE-ADMINISTRATRIX.--In a suit
for the infringement of a patent the bill alleged and the proofs showed that
the letters patent became the property of P. as administratrix of the patentee
as part of his estate, and that complainant was the sole devisee and legatee
under the will of P. Held that no property in the patent passed to the com-
plainant, and the bill must be dismissed. *Pelham v. Edelmeyer, 426.
4. RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER DISABILITY TO TAKE AS INVENTORS OR ASSIGNEES—
RIGHTS OF MArried Women.-The laws of Congress give the right to a pat-
ent to the inventor, whether sui juris or under disability, or to the assigns of the
inventor. As inventor or assignee of a patented invention, a married woman,
an infant, or a person under guardianship obtains a vested right to the patent.
Married women could always take by assignment under the common law.
*Fetter et al. v. Newhall, 429.

TRADE-MARKS. See Injunction, 7.

1. EVIDENCE of Title-Registration Under Law of 1874.—A registration of a
trade-mark effected under the law of 1874 is evidence of the fact that the per-
sons named therein at that time claimed the right, and were allowed to regis-
ter the trade-mark, and depended for its legal effect upon the provisions of
the law under which it was effected. Jacoby et al. v. Lopez et al., 7.

2. SAME-SAME.-When introduced in evidence in a contested case to support an
applicant's right to a registration under the new law, it should be accompa-
nied with evidence identifying the applicant as the person therein named,
and showing that the right has been maintained by the continued use of the
trade-mark, and that it has not in the mean time passed by assignment or by
changes in the composition of the firin to other persons. Id.

TRADE-MARKS-Continued.

3. TRADE-MARK-"ALBANY BEEF."-The fact that the applicant has devised for
the first time a practical method of canned sturgeon would not entitle him to
the exclusive use of the words "Albany Beef” as a trade-mark for such canned
sturgeon, it appearing that such words have gone into use as a name for stur-
geon. Ex parte Ams, 10.

4. MISREPRESENTATION OF ARTICLE AND PLAce of ManufACTURE.—A court of
equity will extend no aid to sustain a claim to a trade-mark on an article
which is put forth with a misrepresentation to the public as to the manu-
facture of the article and as to its place of manufacture, both of which cir-
cumstances were originally circumstances to guide the purchaser of the medi-
cine. Manhattan Medicine Company v. Wood et al.

5. TRANSFER OF Right to Use-NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC.-When a right to the use
of a trade-mark is transferred to others the fact of transfer should be stated
in connection with its use, otherwise a deception would be practiced upon
the public.

*Id.

6. TRADE-MARK-DESCRIPTIVE Words.—A word merely descriptive of an article
of trade, of its qualities, ingredients, or characteristics, cannot become a
lawful trade-mark by virtue of a change in its orthography to that of a for-
eign language in which it possesses the same meaning. Ex parte Kipling, 54.
7. REGISTRATION OF INVALID TRADE-MARKS Should be REFUSED.—It is the duty
of the Commissioner of Patents to refuse to register alleged trade-marks
which, under the decision of the courts, are clearly not valid. Id.

8. SAME.-The Office has no right, by accepting and registering words or symbols
which are clearly not valid trade-marks, to mislead applicants or the public.
Id.

9. MATTER PAtented as Design Cannot be Registered as Trade-MARK.-The
Office, after having adjudicated certain subject-matter patentable as a design,
and granted a patent therefor, thereby giving the patentee the exclusive
right to use the same for the term of years mentioned therein, cannot register
as a trade-mark substantially the same design, and give to another and dif-
ferent party the right to use it as a trade-mark. Ex parte Lee & Shepard, 66.
10. SAME-CAnnot be PerpETUATED BY REGISTRATION AS A TRADE-MARK.-The
monopoly cannot be perpetuated by means of making the form, shape, gen-
eral configuration, or ornamentation of a machine a trade-mark after the ex-
piration of the patent for design or mechanism. Wilcox & Gibbs Sewing Ma-
chine Company v. Frame, 409.

USE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. See Constitutional Pro-
iection of Inventions; Jurisdiction.

USE OF PATENTED ARTICLES. See Licenses, 4, 6.

USE OF PATENTED MACHINE. See Damages and Profits; Infringement, 15; Right
to Use.

UTILITY. See Combinations, 8; Design, 1; Invention, 1.

VACATION OF JUDGMENT. See Particular Patents: 4, Barker.

VACATION OF TRANSFER. See Title to Patent, 2.

VALIDITY OF PART OF CLAIMS. See Disclaimers; Infringement, 19; l'articular
Patents: 21, Fetter; 22, Gilbert.

VALIDITY OF PATENTS. See Abandoned Experiments, 1; Combination, 5; Disclaim
ers, 7; Divisional Application, 1; Injunction, 2, 8, 11; Invalid Patents; Public
Use, 12, 13; Reissues, 7, 11, 16; Void Patents, 1, 2, 3.