the instrument, and that when completed it would anticipate the alleged invention of appellants in every particular.

This case affords a good example of the general unreliability of exparte affidavits, introduced, as in this instance, for the purpose of influ encing the decision of the Office. The facility with which they are obtained is well known, and, from the nature of the case, they do not and cannot have weight in determining the action that should be taken on the application. The practice of introducing such affidavits should be discouraged, except for the purpose of supplying information sought by the Office.

The decision of the Examiners-in-Chief is affirmed.

PEASLEE.
Appeal.

APPEAL FROM THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS-IN-CHIEF IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF BENJ. F. PEASLEE FOR REISSUE OF PATENT NO.

63,746, FOR KNITTING-MACHINE NEEDLES.

(Decided November 12, 1872.)

Invention-Double use.

To spread apart the sides of the slot in a knitting-machine needle so as to insert the latch with its journals (all made in ope piece) in their place, and then close the sides so as to hold it, is but the double use of a well-known mechanical expedient, and cannot be appropriated as an invention by any one exclusively.

LEGGETT, Commissioner:

This invention cousists of a latch of a knitting-machine needle, having its journals made of one piece with it or fixedly attached to it. To insert and secure this latch in position in the needle-slot the walls of the slot are spread apart, the pivot-journals of the latch placed be tween them, and then they are compressed against the latch and around its journals. The latch with these fixed journals is held to be patentable. The claim of the original patent covered it, and the first claim of this application covering it has properly been allowed by the examiner. The second claim, upon which this issue arises, seeks to secure the method of introducing and fastening the latch in place in the needle-slot, as above described. In rejecting this claim the examiner states that the method "is one commonly employed in various branches of mechanics," and, as presented in this application and applied to the device under consideration, is regarded as showing merely a double or analogous use. As an example of its previous existence and employment Holtzapffel's Turning and Mechanical Manipulations (vol. 1, p. 234) is cited, which shows that in constructing pliers, in which one

jaw is inserted in a slot through the other and pivoted, "the aperture is sufficiently bulged out to allow the middle joint to be passed through, after which the outsides are closed upon the center." This process is said to be applicable to "the smallest kinds especially." It is precisely the process here claimed, except that the jaws of pliers, being forged from iron and not from spring-wire, and the slot-walls to be "bulged out" being probably thicker than those of needle-slots, the metal for these reasons must be heated. This is merely incident to the material operated upon. Springing out the sides of steel-needle slots is also merely incidental, and is not a substantial modification of the process. The sort of latch here shown being once constructed, the method of inserting it in place follows from knowledge of the material employed, and the use of the method in other instances such as cited. It is not the result of any contrivance or invention whatever. When applicant devised this latch and ascertained that it was superior to others he invented it; but when he secured it in place by a method well known for securing other articles pivoted within a slot, he merely adopted, he did not invent, the method. The use of this method in connection with this particular device affords no ground for a patent.

The decision of the board is affirmed.

CONKLIN & STAFFORD.
Appeal.

APPEAL FROM THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS-IN-CHIEF IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF E. S. CONKLIN AND JOSEPH STAFFORD, ASSIGNEES OF DANIEL S. STAFFORD, DECEASED, FILED MARCH 16, 1871, FOR REISSUE OF PATENT NO. 31,133, GRANTED JANUARY 15, 1861, FOR CULTIVATORS.

(Decided November 12, 1872.)

Abandonment-Abandonment after date of patent.

It cannot be objected to claims presented upon a reissue for the first time, that the inventions specified have been abandoned since the date of the original patent in consequence of their not having been urged before, and having gone into extensive

use.

The inventions for which claims were made for the first time upon a reissue were held upon the evidence to have been abandoned previous to the original application; and this conclusion was confirmed by the recognition in said application of the previous existence of machines necessarily embodying every element thus claimed.

LEGGETT, Commissioner:

This application is a division of one filed September 13, 1870, for reissue of patent No. 31,133, granted to Daniel S. Stafford January 15, 1861, for improvements, in the language of the inventor, relating "to

that kind of cultivator that can be raised or lowered, or turned to the right or left, by the operator from his seat on the machine, so as to adapt the machine for passing over or turning to one side of an obstruction, or to cause it to follow the crooks in the rows of plants." In other words, the invention relates to what may be called wheeled straddle-row cultivators, which are usually drawn by two horses, and are provided with a seat upon which the driver rides. The patent granted Stafford embraced three claims, two of which were of limited scope, relating to and covering the peculiar construction and combination of certain parts of the device for enabling the driver to guide and control it, and the third covering the peculiar "long bent share-blades or cutters " which were attached to the machine, on each side, for throwing the loosened soil toward the row of plants. The reissue application first filed embraced seven claims, five of which were allowed by the examiner, and two of which were adjudged to interfere with certain patents, five in number, and a pending application, and were, at the suggestion of the Office, presented in this division. These claims are as follows:

The combination, in a straddle-row cultivator, of two wheels, B, frame A, and series of plows G, arranged in two gangs with a central space between the gangs, so as to till or cultivate the soil on both sides of a single row of plants simultaneously, as set forth.

Also, the combination, in a straddle-row cultivator, of two wheels, B, an axle, C, frame A, series of plows G, arranged in two gangs with a central space between the gangs, and a seat, E, for the driver, for the purposes set forth.

It is obvious at a glance that the scope of these claims is sufficiently broad to render subordinate and tributary every practicable cultivator and improvement in cultivators of this class that has yet been devised. They embrace the primary and indispensable elements of all wheeled straddle-row cultivators. The monopoly they will confer, if allowed, upon the assignees of the deceased inventor for the remainder of the term of the patent, and upon his representatives for seven years thereafter, if extended, is of such an important nature, as affecting established manufacturing interests, that a close scrutiny of the right of the applicants to their allowance under the law is especially demanded. In the interference which has been adjudicated, Stafford was, upon the evidence, awarded priority of invention, both by the examiner and the board, respecting the subject-matter of these claims. It was adjudged that he completed and reduced his invention to practice in 1842. Bu it was held that by his laches it afterward went into public use, and became, in contemplation of law, abandoned to the public. The interference was dissolved, and the primary examiner finally rejected the application upon this ground. This action is affirmed by the board, and they argue that the assignees have forfeited their right to secure so much of Stafford's invention as is comprehended in this application, by their delay in not making application therefor earlier in the term of the patent. Upon this point I only desire to say that I am fully convinced there might with propriety be a statute of limitations applying to reissue applications. But under the present law there is,

in my opinion, no ground for implying a rule of that kind. The dictum of Judge Story in the equity suit (Wyeth vs. Stone, 1 Story, 273) cited by the board, by no means supports such a rule of practice for this Office, in view of the statute providing for reissues. Stafford being adjudged the original and first inventor of the combinations here claimed, the only question as to their allowance now is, whether he had abandoned their subject-matter to the public prior to his original application for a patent.

He made and used this invention in 1842. He, however, added improvements to it from time, to perfect its operation, and finally, in 1860, after the lapse of eighteen years, he made application for a patent. In the mean time Dundas and Marsh had produced and operated machines of this class in 1851, and applied for patents, (which the former obtained in 1859,) and four other persons, parties to this controversy, had obtained patents, all showing the devices now claimed. These facts would raise a strong presumption of public use and abandonment were the proof wanting. But it is not. The testimony of Marsh and Weaver in Sayles vs. Hapgood et al., which has been admitted by agreement in this case, as held by the board in their decision of the interference, shows public use. (Ex. No. 1, p. 155, Def't's Test., and pages 104, 114, and 116 Sayles vs. Hapgood.) In view of the long delay between Stafford's original invention and his application for a patent, the patents granted in the mean time showing the invention now claimed, and the proof of public use of the invention several years previous to 1860, the statement in his patent that his invention related "to that kind of cultivator," &c, when taken in connection with the fact that he voluntarily confined himself to claims of limited scope, covering special devices, the result of his later improvements must be regarded as an admission that he knew of the public use of the cultivator, so far as its simple fundamental elements were concerned, as now claimed, and that, even if he did actually invent them eighteen years before, they had become public property, and were no longer subject to monopoly by patent.

The affidavits filed in support of this case prove nothing, except that the affiants did not know that straddle-row cultivators had been made and used in public prior to the date of Stafford's patent, and that they believe they were not in general use among farmers before that time, which is no doubt the fact. But that they were actually used in public years before, and in construction comprehended all that is embraced in these claims and more, is proved, and no amount of testimony to ignorance of the facts can alter their legal effect.

The decision of the board is affirmed.

JOHN F. SHEPARD.

Appeal.

APPEAL FROM THE PRINCIPAL EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF JOHN F. SHEPARD FOR LETTERS PATENT FOR A SLICING, GRATING, AND SIFTING MACHINE.

(Decided November 16, 1872.)

A patent may be granted for a mechanism so constructed that it may be used for several purposes by having different devices connected with it, each adapted to one of those purposes.

Such a patent may, it seems, include also a claim for the principal mechanism in combination with any one of the adjunct devices.

If a peculiar construction of the adjunct device is necessary to effect the combination, it may also be claimed in the same patent.

But a patent will not be granted for a combination of the principal mechanism with all the adjunct devices with which it may be thus connected, the combination with each device constituting a distinct machine, and requiring a separate patent.

THACHER, Acting Commissioner:

Applicant mounts a hopper upon a rack or frame, to which may be applied a slicer, a grater, or a sieve, the three being so constructed as to be interchangeable.

The claims are as follows:

1. The construction of the rack A and hopper B, and their combination and arrange ment with a slicer, grater, or seive, substantially as and for the purposes set forth.

2. The slicer C, composed of the frame c, knife g, slides h h, and plates i i, combined and arranged substantially as and for the purposes shown.

3. The trap e e, in connection wish a grater, substantially as and for the purpose shown.

The principal examiner requires a division of the application, stating that it embraces "three different inventions for three different purposes." From this decision applicant appeals to the Commissioner.

The objection of the examiner is well taken. The question of joinder of inventions has been iscussed by the Commissioner so frequently and fully in decisions heretofore published, that the established practice of the Office ought by this time to be generally known. (Linus Yale, C. D., 1869, 110; Leopold Lehman, C. D., 1870, 70; and Abel Combs, C. D., 1871, 209.

The decision in the case of Lehman is especially applicable to the one now under consideration.

Shepard first claims the rack and hopper in combination with a slicergrater, and sieve, and then the specific construction of the slicer and grater separately. The first is improper because it is in effect a claim for three distinct and independent machines. When the slicer is removed, and either the grater or sieve substituted, a new machine is produced, having new functions and a different operation. To all intents and pur