the objection to which the first three are open. But we think it also is not infringed by the device used by the defendants. The soldering-iron described in both the original and reissued Barker patent is a disk of suitable size to cover the lid of the can to be soldered, with the recess B in the under side, to give room for the convex lid of the can and to confine the soldering process to the outer edge of the lid or cover. This is entirely unlike the soldering iron described in the Tillery & Ewalt patent, the tool used by the defendants. The latter is not a disk, but closely resembles the common soldering-iron, which is an old and familiar tool, and differs from it only in not having a pointed end, but one made so as to form a short are of a small circle. The device covered by the Tillery & Ewalt patent was contrived for two purposes, neither of which the Barker contrivance is capable of accomplishing-namely, the adjustment of the soldering iron radially from a hinge-joint in order to adapt the same tool to be used with caps or lids of different sizes, and, second, the giving of the soldering iron such a shape as that it would not hide the process of soldering, but made it possible to see at a glance, without removing the tool, any part of the cap which had been left unsoldered. The contention of the appellants that the soldering iron of the Tillery & Ewalt patent is merely the disk of the Barker patent with a large part of its circumference removed defeats itself, for when a large part of the disk is removed it ceases to be a disk, and becomes the mere soldering-iron of the Tillery & Ewalt device, whereas, as we have seen, a disk is an essential element in the invention covered by the Barker patent. We think that by no stretch of construction can the device used by defendants be included in the fourth and fifth claims of the 'Barker reissued patent, and that the defendants do not infringe those claims. It remains to consider whether the appellants were entitled to relief against the defendants for the alleged infringement of the Bostwick patent. The original Bostwick patent was for "a new and useful solderingiron for soldering metallic caps or other projecting pieces on metallic vessels." It related, so the specification states To the construction and use of a hollow soldering-iron for soldering metallic caps or other projecting pieces upon metallic oil-cans or other vessels; said iron, when made with an inclosing edge of the dimensions and form of the rim or edge of the cap or piece to he soldered, so as to conform thereto when placed thereon, and so extended and formed interiorly as to receive and embrace loosely a guiding-rod to be placed upon the cap to be soldered, to hold the latter down firmly until it has been secured by the solder, and at the same time guide the iron to its proper place upon or against the rim or edge of the cap. The specification was illustrated by drawings, as follows: The manner in which the device was to be used was thus stated: After the iron has been properly heated it is slipped over this rod, and the rod, been placed upon the cap, is held thereon firmly, while the lower rim of the heated July supplied with solder, in, ear upon the joint of the cap with the vessel, will instantly solder and secure the same about its entire circumference. By lifting t'e rod, its shoulder, engaging with the offset within the iron, will take up the latter with it in readiness to be placed upon another cap, and thus a number of caps may quickly and thoroughly be soldered at one heat of the iron, The specification then proceeds: I contemplate making the soldering-iron A and its guiding-rod C of any form in transverse section which may be required, to cause it to fit upon any form of cap or other projection, whether round, square, oval, or of any other curved or polygonal shape. Its lower rin or edge need not be made continuons, but may be broken or slotted. The claim was as follows: The hollow soldering-iron A, having a handle, B, and beveled Fig.1. Fig.2. rim a a, in combination with the rod C, substantially as herein described and set forth. On September 3, 1878, Bostwick, with the assent of E. M. Lang & Co., the assignees, made application to the Patent Office for a reissue of his pat ent. His application was granted, and his patent reissued with a largely expanded specification, and with two claims instead of one, which were as follows: 1. A tool for soldering the caps on can, consisting of a soldering-iron revolving about a central pivotal rod, which is made to rest upon and steady the cap during the operation of soldering. 2. The combination of a hollow iron for soldering caps on cans with a separate and inclosed weight for steadying the cap on the can during the operation of the soldering. Comparing the first claim of the reissue with the claim of the origi nal patent, it appears that the former has been greatly broadened. The claim of the original patent was for a combination. One element of the combination was a hollow soldering iron A, with the handle B and beveled rim a a. This was described in the specification as a hollow cylinder, of metal, made to fit over and inclose the metallic cap to be soldered, its inner diameter at its lower end being somewhat greater than that of the cap. This was nothing more than the annular soldering. iron, which it is conceded was old when the Bostwick patent was issued. The second element was the rod C, whose lower end was described to be about equal in diameter to that of the cap to be soldered. The first claim of the reissued patent is expanded to embrace as the first element of the combination any "tool for soldering caps," no matter what its shape or size. This tool is made to revolve about a central pivotal rod. The idea of revolving the soldering-tool about the pivotal rod is not suggested in the original patent, but is excluded by the statement in the specification that the inventor contemplated making the soldering-iron and the guiding rod of any form in transeverse section necessary to fit in any form of cap, whether round, square, oval, or of any other curved or polygonal shape. The claim under consideration does not describe with any accuracy the device covered by the original patent, but is made broad enough to include any soldering iron which is constructed to revolve about a central pivotal rod resting on the cap to be soldered. This claim, however, does accurately describe the Tillery & Ewalt device, and it is apparent from the record that it was drawn for the purpose of making the use of the latter an infringement on the reissued patent. It could not do this without expanding the claim of the original patent. In our judgment, therefore, the invention thus described and claimed is a different invention from that described and claimed in the original patent, and the claim is therefore void. The second claim of the reissued patent, it is clear, is not infringed by the use of the Tillery & Ewalt device. The latter employs no hollow soldering iron, nor does it have a separate and inclosed weight for steadying the cap in the can during the process of soldering, both of which are essential, and they are the only elements of the claim. The appellants have endeavored to avoid the objection to the reissued Bostwick patent by filing a disclaimer in the Patent Office. The disclaimer was filed September 24, 1883, more than two years and a half after the final decree in the circuit court, and while the case was pending on appeal in this court. If the appellants are, under these circumstances, entitled to have the disclaimer considered, it cannot aid their case. In support of the application for reissue of his original patent, which was made by Bostwick with the assent and in behalf of the appellants, he took an oath as follows: That he believes that by reason of an insufficient or defective specification his aforesaid letters patent are inoperative or invalid. By the disclaimer referred to, the appellants declare that they thereby "disclaim all words, phrases, and sentences introduced in the specification" of the reissued patent "which may mean or may be construed to contain any other or different invention than that justly belonging to the inventor, and fairly included in the invention as originally de scribed and claimed," and that they "desire that the reissued patent, when the disclaimed matter is canceled, should read as follows." Then follows a specification and claim, which, with the exception of six consecutive words, not affecting its meaning, is identical with the specification and claim of the original patent. The purpose of the disclaimer and its effect, if valid, was to abandon the reissued patent and resume the original. We are of the opinion that this could not be done by a disclaimer. The original patent had been declared on the oath of the patentee to be invalid and inoperative. It had been surrendered and canceled and reissued letters patent granted in its place. It is not competent for the patentee or his assignees, by merely disclaiming all the changes made in the reissued patent, to revive and restore the original patent. This could be done only, if it could be done at all, by surrender of the reissued patent and the grant of another reissue. It follows from these views that the decree of the circuit court dis. missing the appellants' bill was right and must be affirmed. [United States Circuit Court-Southern District of New York.] SIMON v. NEUMANN ET AL. Decided May 10, 1884. 27 O. G., 918. An expansion of claims by reissue nearly five years after the issuance of the original patent is not warranted according to the recent decisions upon this subject. Mr. Frederic H. Betts and Mr. J. S. Hindon Hyde for the orator. Mr. W. C. Hauff and Mr. John Van Santvoord for the defendants. WHEELER, J.: This suit rests upon Reissue Letters Patent No. 9,772, dated June 21, 1881, the original of which was No. 177,020, dated May 2, 1876, and granted to the orator for an improvement in traveling-bags. The improvement consisted in making the lock-plate long enough to support, not only the lock itself and its fastenings, but also ring-loops for the handle attached to raised portions of the plate, and having creases under the ends of the plate for rings or other devices for a carrying. strap, so that attaching the plate to the frame would attach all these parts to the bag. There were three claims in the original patent-one for the lock plate, having secured to it the lock, fastening, and ring-loops; one for the lock-plate, having the recesses formed by the raised portions for receiv ing the ring loops; and oue for the combination of the plate, the lock, and the fastening device secured together and adapted to be fastened to the frame. The ring-loops and the mode of attaching them to an extended plate, and the creases under the ends of the plate for the rings of a carrying-strap, appear to have been new. A lock and fastening secured to a plate adapted to be attached to a bag-frame appear to have been old. The first two claims would, therefore, be valid; but the defendants do not have the ring-loops nor their mode of attachment to the plate, and do not infringe those claims. The third claim, not calling for anything peculiar about the plate more than that it should be combined with the lock and fastening device and adapted to be attached to the frame, by its terms covered nothing that was new and appears to be invalid. Nothing in respect to the creases under the ends of the plate was claimed. The reissue has two new and additional claims-one for a lock provided with means whereby the rings of the carrying-strap can be attached directly thereto, substantially as specified, and one for a lock having its bottom plate provided with creases for the rings for the handles. These claims have reference to the creases for the rings of the carrying. strap, or handle, under the ends of the extended lock-plate. They are extended to cover this feature. The defendants have the extended plate and this feature. There is no claim anywhere for the extended plate by itself, and none that is infringed, except these expanded claims made to cover the infringement by the expansion. The expansion was nearly five years after the original,,and does not seem to be warranted according to the recent decision upon this subject. Therefore the defendants do not infringe any valid claim, and the bill must be dismissed. Let a decree be entered accordingly, with costs. [Supreme Court of the United States.] TURNER & SEYMOUR MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. DOVER STAMPING COMPANY. Decided April 14, 1884. 27 O. G., 1131. 1. It is immaterial whether or not a certain construction might have been covered by the language of the specification, since the claims are to be dealt with and nothing else. 2. Reissue Letters Patent No. 6,542, granted July 13, 1875, to Timothy Earle, for an improvement in egg-beaters, eleven years after the grant of the original patent, and with a broader claim than the latter, held to be invalid. APPEAL from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Connecticut. Mr. Jno. S. Beach and Mr. Jno. K. Beach for the appellants. Mr. Justice MATTHEWS delivered the opinion of the court: |