OFFICE OF THE SPECIFICATION. See Specifications.

OFFICERS OF A CORPORATION. See Liability; Service of Process.
OFFICIAL RECORD. See Notice to the Public of Patented Articles.

OLD DEVICES. See Non-Patentability, 2, 3.

OLD ELEMENTS. See Anticipation, 2; Combinations; Construction of Claims, 2; Construction of Specifications and Patents, 2, 10; Infringement, 22; Interfering Pat

ents; Non-Invention, 2; Patentability, 3, 4; Results.

OLD PROCESS. See Construction of Specifications and Patents, 2.
OMISSIONS. See Invention Shown but not Claimed, 3; Reissues, 21.

OPINION OF THE EXAMINER. See Practice in the Patent Office, 1, 2.

OWNERSHIP. See Damages and Profits, 13.

PARTIAL USE. See Construction of Specifications and Patents, 8; Infringement, 12, 20, 27.

PARTICULAR PATENTS.

1. BARKER-Soldering DEVICES.-The Reissue Patent No. 8,781, granted July 1, 1879, to Edward M. Lang, for an improvement in soldering devices, as assignee of Abel Barker, construed and held to be invalid as to the first three claims and not to be infringed as to the remaining claims. McMurray et al. v. Mallory et al., 244.

2. Bauman—APPARATUS FOR DRYING SAND AND GRAVEL.-Patent No. 121,746, granted December 12, 1871, to Allen H. Bauman, for an apparatus for drying sand and gravel, construed, sustained, and held to be infringed. Bradley et

al. v. Dull et al., 219.

3. BING'S PATENT-SHOES For Car-BRAKES-CONSTRUED AND LIMITED.-In this case it was held that on the record herein claim 2 of Letters Patent No. 40,156, granted to James Bing, October 6, 1863, for an improved shoe for car-brakes— namely, "The combination of shoe A, sole B, clevis D, and bolt G, the whole being constructed and arranged substantially as specified "-does not embody any lateral rocking motion in the shoe as an element of the combination. *Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company v. National Car-Brake Shoe Company, 121.

4. SAME-INfringement-COMBINATIONS-MECHANICAL CHANGES.-On such a construction, there was on the record herein patentable novelty in said claim, and a structure having the same four parts in combination, with merely formal, and not substantial, mechanical differences, infringes said claim. *Id. 5. BOSTWICK-SOLDERING IRONS.-Reissue Letters Patent No. 8,466, granted October 29, 1878, to E. M. Lang & Co., as assignee of Jabez A. Bostwick, for an improvement in soldering devices, held to be invalid as to the first claim and not to be infringed as to the other claim. *McMurray et al. v. Mallory et al., 244.

6. BOSTOCK-SEWING-MACHINE TUCK-CREASERS-LETTERS PATENT Nos. 64,404, 80, 269, 81, 160, 117, 501.-Letters Patent No. 64,404, issued May 7, 1867, and No. 80,269, issued July 28, 1868, to Edward Bostock, for improvements in sewingmachine tuck-creaser, are not shown to want patentable novelty, and are infringed by the devices constructed under Letters Patent No. 81,160, issued August 18, 1868, and No. 117,501, issued May 16, 1876, to Henry C. Goodrich. *Bostock v. Goodrich, 404.

7. BROWN-COUPLINGS FOR CULTIVATORS.-The first claim of Letters Patent No. 190,816, granted to William P. Brown, May 15, 1877, for an improvement in couplings for cultivators, examined, sustained, and the defendant held to infringe. *The Brown Manufacturing Company v. Deere & Co., 380.

PARTICULAR PATENTS-Continued.

8. SAME-SAME.-The phrase in the claim against or with the weight of the rear cultivators or plows" should not be read, as defendant contends, "against and with the weight," &c. There is no uncertainty or ambiguity in this claim. The claim is comprehensive enough to cover both the arm M (by which a spring-power is applied) and the arm M2 (by which the draft-power can be applied) for the purposes to which the inventor proposed to apply them. *Id.

9. SAME-SAME.-The fact that these older devices-Stover of 1870 and Brown of 1872—which it is now claimed were susceptible of being modified by mere mechanical skill into a machine in its operation and effect like that shown by the complainant's patent, rested without any such modification until the present patent was promulgated, held to be quite conclusive proof that it required something more than mere mechanical skill to produce what is shown in this patent. *Id.

10. SAME-SAME.-Letters Patent No. 190,816, granted May 15, 1877, to William P. Brown, for an improvement in couplings for cultivators, construed, and the decision in Brown Manufacturing Company v. Deere & Co. (28 O. G., 1187) applied thereto in so far as relates to the first claim, and defendant held to infringe it and also the second claim. *The Brown Manufacturing Company v. B. D. Buford & Co., 385.

11. SAME-SAME.-Defendant's bracket, though cast upon and as a part of the pipebox or coupling, held in every particular to take the place of and be the equivalent of the stirrup G shown in complainant's patent. *Id.

12. SAME-SAME.-So also the projecting arm of the defendant's pipe-box, though made separately and then rigidly attached thereto, is in all essential functions but the projection m of the complainant's patent. *Id.

13. BULL-APPARATUS FOR CLEANING PRIVIES-CLAIMS 1 AND 3 DECLARED INVALID FOR ENLARGEMENT.-Claims 1 and 3 of Reissue Letters Patent No. 6,962, granted to Lewis R. Keizer, February 29, 1876, for an improvement in apparatus for cleaning privies, the original Patent No. 115,565 having been granted June 6, 1871, to Henry C. Bull and Joseph M. Lowenstein, on the invention of said Bull, and the application for the reissue having been filed January 11, 1876-namely, "1. A privy-vault cleaning apparatus consisting of an air-pump, a deodorizer, and suitable tubular connections, in combination with an independently movable receiving-cask having an induction passage or opening, and also an air-opening for connection with the air-pump, and provided with screw-necks at each opening for receiving sealing caps or covers, substantially as described, whereby the movable cask may be located in any desired position with relation to the vault and privy, and the pump and deodorizer located in any desired position with relation to the vault, privy, and cask, and also whereby the casks, when filled, may be handled as is usual with filled casks, as set forth; 3. The combiration, with a portable night-soil cask, of a float-valve located at the air-passage substantially as described, whereby the fluid matter is prevented from entering the air-passage and clog. ging the suction air-pipe and pump, as set forth "--are invalid, because they are for inventions not indicated in the original patent as inventions, being for sub-combinations in combinations claimed in the original, and were made for the purpose of covering features described in patents issued to others during the interval between the granting of the original and the application for the reissue. Those features are contained in the defendant's apparatus, and that appartus does not infringe any claim in the original patent. Clements v. Odorless Excavating Apparatus Company, 86.

PARTICULAR PATENTS-Continued.

14. BURDETT-REED-ORGANS-CLAIM 1 CONSTRUED AND DEFINED.-Claim 1 of
Letters Patent No. 87,241, granted February 23, 1869, to Riley Burdett, as in-
ventor, for seventeen years from August 24, 1868, for an improvement in reed-
organs-namely, "The arrangement, in a reed musical instrument, of the
reed-board A, having the diapason set a and its octave set b and the addi-
tional set L extending from about at tenor F upward through the scale, sub-
stantially as and to the effect set forth"-defined and construed. *Estey et
al. v. Burdett, 95.

15. SAME-ANTICIPATION.-A reed-board with two sets of reeds and a third partial
set was made and put into an organ by one Dayton prior to the invention of
Burdett, and, such organ being put in evidence, it was held that the alleged
infringing organs contained nothing which, so far as said claim 1 was con-
cerned, was not found in such prior organ. *Id.

16. SAME-CLAIM 2 CONSTRUED-ANTICIPATION-NON-INVENTION.-As to claim 2
-namely, "The reed-board A and foundation-board G, constructed with the
contracted valve-openings D F F, and the reeds arranged in relation thereto,
all in the manner described"-it was held that, in view of the state of the
art, there was no invention in making the length and size of the valve-open-
ing greater or less in a reed-board of a given width, or where the reed-board
was made wider or narrower, or had more or less sets of reeds in it, either
full or partial; and that the vibrating ends of the lowest and longest reeds
in such prior organ were as near together as they were in the reed-boards of
the alleged infringing organs. On these views a decree was entered in favor
of the defendant. *Id.

17. BUSSEY'S COOKING-STOVE PATENTS-FIRST FOUR CLAIMS OF SECOND REISSUE
CONSTRUED AND LIMITED.-The first four claims of Reissue Letters Patent
No. 3,815, granted to Esek Bussey and Charles A. McLeod, February 1, 1870,
for a cooking-stove, the original patent, No. 56,686, having been granted
to said Bussey, as inventor, July 24, 1866, and reissued to him, as No. 3,649,
September 28, 1869-namely, "1. A diving-flue cooking-stove with the exit-
flue so constructed as to inclose on the sides and bottom the culinary boiler
or hot-water reservoir B; 2. A diving-tlue cooking-stove with the exit-flue
constructed across the bottom and up the rear upright side of the culinary
boiler or hot-water reservoir B; 3. A diving-fiue cooking-stove constructed
with an exit-passage, F, below the top of the oven, and an exit-flue, E E', in
combination with an uncased reservoir, B, attached to the rear of the stove,
and placed just above such exit-passage, and so arranged that the gases of
combustion, in passing through such exit-flue, will impinge upon or come in
direct contact with said reservoir, substantially as and for the purposes here-
in before specified; 4. An exit-passage, F, constructed in the rear of a diving-
flue cooking stove and below the top of the oven, in combination with an
uncased reservoir, B, attached to the rear of the stove, the bottom of which
reservoir is also below the top of the oven, and so arranged that the gases of
combustion will come in contact with and heat such reservoir by a direct draft
from the fire-box to the smoke-pipe "--are limited to a structure in which the
front of the reservoir has no air-space in front of it, and in which the exit-
flue does not expand into a chamber at the bottom of the reservoir, and in
which the vertical part of the exit-flue does not pass up through the reser-
voir. *Bussey et al. v. Excelsior Manufacturing Company, 102.

18. SAME-NOT INFRINGED.-Hence those claims are not infringed by a stove in
which, although there are three flues, and an exit-passage below the top of
the oven, and a reservoir the bottom of which is below the top of the oven,
no part of the rear end vertical plate is removed, so as to allow the gases of
combustion to come into direct contact with the front of the reservoir, nor is
any such plate employed as the plate w w of the patent, but there is a dead-

PARTICULAR PATENTS-Continued.

air space between the rear plate of the flue and the front of the reservoir, and
the exit-flue is not a narrow one, carried across the middle of the bottom of
the reservoir, as in the patent, but the products of combustion, on leaving the
flue-space, pass into a chamber beneath the reservoir, the area of which is
coextensive with the entire surface of the bottom of the reservoir, and the
vertical passage out of such chamber is not one outside of the rear of the res-
ervoir, but is one in and through the body of the reservoir, and removable
with it. Id.

19. CHERRY-Cans for TRANSPORTATION OF CREAM.-Letters Patent No. 222,814,
granted to John G. Cherry, December 23, 1879, reissued July 19, 1881, No.
9,811, for improvement in cane for the transportation of cream, had been an-
ticipated, and hence there was no infringement by Swab. *Cherry v. Swab et
al., 396.

20. CROSBY And Kellogg-Machines for FRILLING AND RUFFLING.—Letters
Patent No. 37,033, granted December 2, 1862, to C. O. Crosby and Henry Kel-
logg, for an improvement in machines for frilling and ruffling, construed, and
the second and fourth claims held to be infringed by defendants' machines.
*Tuttle v. Claflin et al., 450.

21. DOYLE-MOLDS FOR MAKING COMBINED INGOTS OF STEEL AND IRON.-See Illing-
worth.

22. EAGLETON-JAPANNED FURNITURE-SPRINGS.-Letters Patent No. 122,001,
granted to the Eagleton Manufacturing Company, December 19, 1871, for an
improvement in japanned furniture-springs, as the alleged invention of J. J.
Eagleton, held to be invalid, and the following points ruled: (a) The patent
is for steel furniture-springs. protected by japan, and tempered by the heat
used in baking on the japan. (b) Such springs, so protected and tempered,
were known and used by various persons named in the answer, before the
date of the patent. (c) The specification which accompanied the original
application by Eagleton, July 6, 1868, did not set forth the discovery that
moderate heat, such as may be applied in japanning, will impart temper to
the springs, but set forth merely the protection of the springs by japan. (d)
Not only does the evidence fail to show that Eagleton, who died in February,
1870, in fact made and used, prior to such other persons, the invention covered
by the patent as issued, but it shows that he did not, and that probably it
never came to his knowledge while he lived. (e) Japanning by itself was
not patentable, and Eagleton, in the specification which he signed and swore
to, did not describe any mode of japanning which would temper or strengthen
the steel, and did not even mention that the japan was to be applied with
heat, and it now appears that the temper and strength are produced by
the heat altogether, and not at all by the japan. (ƒ) The only invention
to which the application and oath of Eagleton were referable was that of
merely japanning steel furniture-springs; the authority given to his attorneys
was only to amend that application, and ended at his death; the amend-
ments made were not mere amplifications of what had been in the applica-
tion before; the patent was granted upon them without any new oath by
the administratrix, and this defense is not required by statute to be specifi-
cally set forth in the answer, and can be availed of under the issues raised by
the pleadings, as showing that the plaintiff has no valid patent. *Eagleton
Manufacturing Company v. West, Bradley & Cary Manufacturing Company et
al., 261.

23. EARLE EGG-BEATERS.-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. * Turner & Seymour Manufacturing Company v. Dover Stamping
Company, 252.

PARTICULAR PATENTS—Continued.

24. EVEREST-DETERMINING THE GRADE OF LUBRICATING OIL.-Letters Patent
No. 174,506, granted March 7, 1876, to H. B. Everest, sustained. "Everest v·
The Buffalo Lubricating Oil Company (Limited), 375.

25. FORNCROOK-HONEY-FRAMES.-Letters Patent No. 243,674, granted June 28,
1881, to James Forncrook, for an improvement in sectional honey-frames, con-
strued and declared invalid, the device covered by the claim having been on
sale for more than two years before the patentee filed his application; also
anticipated by Letters Patent No. 157,473. Forncrook v. Root, 456.

26. GEORGE-BOX-TOE FOR BOOTS AND SHOES.-Letters Patent No. 95,894, granted
to H. W. George, October 19, 1869, for an improvement in box-toes for boots
and shoes, anticipated by Letters Patent No. 69,082, granted to Alfred B.
Ely, September 24, 1867. *Truss v. Shuter et al., 160.

27. GREEN-DRIVEN WELL.-Patent No. 73,425, January 14, 1868, and Reissue No.
4,372, May 9, 1871, granted to Nelson W. Green, construed, compared, and the
reissue held to cover an invention different from that embraced in the origi-
nal patent, and to be therefore void. "Andrews et al. v. Horey, 129.
28. SAME-ANTICIPATION.—It being true that in 1849 and 1850 wells were driven at
Milwaukee by a process not distinguishable from that devised by the paten-
tee in 1861, and these wells were driven, not as more experiments, nor for the
purpose of exhibition, but for public and continuous use, it is held that the
defense of want of novelty is sustained. *Id.

29. HAYES Skylight TuRRETS AND CONSERVATORIES.-The second and third
claims of Reissue No. 8,689, granted April 29, 1879, to George Hayes, for an
improvement in skylights and conservatories, construed, sustained, and held
to be infringed by defendant. Hayes v. Bickelhoupt, 413.

30. HICKS-HOES.- Letters Patent No. 189,220, granted April 3, 1877, to O. H. Hicks,
for an improvement in hoes, considered. Cook v. Sandusky Tool Company, 160.
31. HICKS-Magnifying ThermometerS.-Reissued Letters Patent No. 10,189,
granted August 29, 1882, to James Joseph Hicks, assignes of Luigi Peroni,
for a magnifying thermometer, the principle of which is the placing of the
bore of the thermometer in rear of or beyond a magnifying curve or surface
through which the bore is to be viewed, declared valid. "Hicks v. Otto et
al., 405.
32. HOLMES AND ROOME-ELECTRIC LINING FOR SAFES.-Patent No. 120,874, granted
to Edwin Holmes and Henry C. Roome, November 14, 1871, construed to be
for an electrical covering fitting the outside of safes, as distinguished from
au electrical protection applied to houses and other buildings and to rooms.
The patent sustained and a preliminary injunction granted. Holmes Electric
Protective Company v. Metropolitan Burglar Alarm Company, 387.

33. ILLINGWORTH-MOLDS FOR INGOTS.-Letters Patent No. 166,700, granted August
17, 1875, to John Illingworth, and No. 99,299, granted February 1, 1870, to
Patrick Doyle, for molds for ingots, construed, sustained, and held to be in-
fringed by machines used under Letters Patent No. 240,727, granted April 26,
1881, to Spaulding et al., as assignees of Alfred E. Jones. *Doyle v. Spaulding
et al., 181.

34. IRWIN-LANTERNS.-Patents Nos. 47,551 and 50,591, granted, respectively, May
2 and October 24, 1865, to John H. Irwin, for improvenients in lanterns, con-
strued. Adams v. Howard et al., 117.

35. JENKINS-SELF-CLOSING FAUCETS.-Letters patent granted to Nathaniel Jen-
kins, June 27, 1865, for an improvement in self-closing faucets, construed.
*Zane et al. v. Soffe, 113.

36. SAME-CONSTRUED AND LIMITED.-In view of the fact that certain mechanical
equivalents of a device claimed were previously used, the patent was con-
strued to cover only the specific device mentioned in the claim. *Id.