upsetting; but it was the employment of specified means, or their equivalents, for the accomplishment of a desired end. [* Ibid., 152. 6. The claims for the process of forming the angular neck and protuberant head, as contained in the reissue, construed to be to use substantially of the dies described in the specification, or their equivalents. [* Ibid., 152. 7. The claim in the reissued patent does not include any machine for making bolts from round iron, in which machine the two operatious of forming the angular neck by dies which will swage, and forming the head by upsetting, are combined. [* Ibid., 152. 8. The patent of John Dalton for "a head or hair net composed of a main set of meshes fabricated of coarse thread, combined with an auxiliary set or sets of meshes fabricated of fine thread," is void, because there is no invention in it, and because various fabrics had been made and were in public use for a long time before his application, which are precisely and accurately described by Dalton in the specification and claim of his patent. [* Dalton vs. Jennings, 158. 9. The claim of the Cummings patent, reissue No. 1,904—“the plate of hard rubber, or vulcanite, or its equivalent, for holding artificial teeth, or teeth and gums, substantially as described"—is for a set of artificial teeth, as a new article of manufacture, consisting of a plate of hard rubber with teeth, or teeth and gums, secured thereto in the manner described in the specification, by embedding the teeth and pins in a vulcanizable compound so that it shall surround them while it is in a soft state, before it is vulcanized, and so that when it has been vulcanized the teeth are firmly and inseparably secured in the vulcanite, and a tight joint is effected between them, the whole constituting but one piece. [* Smith us. The Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Company et al., 171. 10. It is for a new product, differing from all that had preceded it not merely in degree of usefulness and excellence, but differing in kind, having new uses and properties. It was different in kind or species from all other devices. Devising and forming such a manufacture by such a process and of such materials was invention, although sets of artificial teeth had been previously mounted upon bases of other materials. The case of Hotchkiss vs. Greenwood (11 How., 248) considered. That case does decide that employing one known material in place of another is not invention if the result be only greater cheapness and durability of the product. But this is all. It does not decide that no use of one material in lieu of another in the formation of a manufacture can, in any case, amount to invention, or be the subject of a patent. If such a substitution involves a new mode of construction, or develops new uses and properties of the article formed, it may amount to invention. The substitution may be something more than formal. It may require contrivance, in which case the mode of making it would be patentable; or the result may be the production of an analogous, but substantially different, manufacture. [* Ibid., 171. 11. The invention claimed in the reissued patents of Lacy and Cornell for improvements in bushes and wrenches for their insertion in beer-barrels, held to be patentable. [Cornell vs. The Downer and Bemis Brewing Co. et al., 194. 12. Where there is a slight change in a machine, by which a new result is brought about, and which might be the subject of a patent, courts do not feel inclined to extend the invention beyond the mere change, although they may be inclined to sustain the patent; but where something elementary has been discovered and constitutes fairly a part of the invention of the patentee, no other inventor or manufacturer ought to be permitted to use that elementary part without paying tribute to the first inventor or originator. [* Ibid., 194. 13. Charles Seidler's reissued patent of October 24, 1876, construed to embrace the impressment of a hard or metallic label upon either the inner or outer face of a plug of tobacco. [* Lorillard & Co. vs. McDowell & Co., 237. 14. The inventor entered a disclaimer to that portion of his specification referring to the omission of the tar-paper and the formation of the blocks without interposing anything between their joints, and further disclaimed "the forming of blocks from plastic material without interposing anything between the joints while in the process of formation." Held, that this disclaimer left the patent for a pavement wherein the blocks were formed by the interposition of some separating material between the joints, and in the specification the patentee has described tar-paper or its equivalent. [* Schillinger vs. Gunther, 260. 15. The improvement effected by the patentee consisted in dividing the pavement into blocks, so that one block might be removed and repaired without injury to the rest of the pavement. [* Ibid., 260. 16. A liberal construction is to be given to the language of all patents and specifications, so as not to limit the actual invention of the patentee. [* Ibid., 260. 17. The patent granted to Eli W. Blake for a stone-breaker, June 15, 1858, reissued January 9, 1866, and extended June 15, 1872, is not anticipated by the earlier patent to Hobbs and Brown for "improvements in the application of well-known mechanical means for the purpose of crushing ice," and to Hamilton for "crushing and grinding quartz or other substances," they not containing any of the essential elements of Blake's invention. [* Robertson et al. vs. Blake, 266. 18. The invention patented to Wm. Beschke, August 14, 1866, includes as a necessary ingredient wire-gauze or perforated thin plate in the form of scrolls or of layers like the leaves of a book. [*Ashcroft vs. Hollings, 270. 19. The invention secured to James Swan in his reissued patent of October 21, 1873, consisting of the method and means for forming auger-lips thus described is not anticipated by the patent to Ransom Cook, inasmuch as the former bends and swages or draws out the lips, while the latter merely twists or bends them. [* Bruff vs. Ives, 275. 20. Swan's invention consists, generally, in the combination of the two sets of dies holding and forming, so that the action of the rotating forming dies upon the lips clamped by the griping-dies may upset and form the lips. [* Ibid., 275. 21. The courts are inclined to give a patentee the benefit of a liberal construction of the patent, and when it appears that a valuable invention has really been made, to uphold that which was invented, and which comes within any fair interpretation of the claim; but when there are three inventions described, and but two claims made, each of which is valid and for the invention described therein, the court cannot give effect to the third invention, which the patentee has failed to claim. [* Merrill vs. Yeomans, 279. 22. Letters Patent No. 82606, reissued March 7, 1871, to George Crouch, for a paricular construction of strap to "confine a shawl or similar article in a bundle," declared to be void, in consequence of prior knowledge and public use. [* Crouch vs. Roemer, 288. 23. Reissue Letters Patent No. 3523, granted J. C. Henderson, June 29, 1869, for “improvement in coal-stoves," reviewed and sustained. [* Henderson et al. vs. The Cleveland Co-operative Stove Company, 293. 24. The patentee having stated that the combination of two certain elements or features must be preserved in whatever form of stove his improvements were applied. Held, that separate claim to each of the elements could, nevertheless, be maintained. [* Ibid., 293. 25. The case distinguished from l'ance vs. Campbell, (1 Black, 427,) in that separate claim is made to each element, as well as to their combination, although the entire improvement is said to consist of their combination alone. [* Ibid., 293. 26. A patent should never be defeated for a mere technical defect, if it clearly appears what the inventor has described and claimed as his invention. [* Adams vs. The Joliet Manufacturing Company, 304. 27. Letters Patent No. 119705, granted to E. A. Heath, October 10, 1871, declared to be void, in view of letters patent granted to Wm. H. Topham, August 2, 1870, for an improvement in spittoons. [* Ingersoll rs. Turner & Turner, 310. 28. Reissue Letters Patent No. 5155, granted to Andrew Albright, November 26, 1872, for "improvement in dies for finishing rubber-coated harness-mountings," reviewed and sustained. [* Albright vs. The Celluloid Harness-Trimming Company, 311. 29. The patent of Nathaniel Jenkins for a "self-closing faucet," issued June 27, 1865, is not anticipated by the French patent of Chretien Morand, dated November 14, 1851, [* Zane et al. vs. Peck Bros. & Co., 325. 30. The courts will endeavor to give such construction to a patent as will support the invention, and will not unnecessarily adopt one that would render the patent invalid. [Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Company vs. Davis. Same vs. Defendants in sixty-seven other cases, 327. 31. The scope of the Cawood patent (1 Wall., 491) more fully defined, and its validity sustained. [* The Railroad Companies vs. Turrill, 341. 32. Reissue letters patent, granted John Deuchfield, April 20, 1872, examined and sustained. [* Herring et al. vs. Nelson et al. Same vs. Gage et al., 359. 33. Reissue Letters Patent No. 6100, granted H. A. Lyman, October 27, 1874 (Thomson Langdon & Co., assignees), declared to be valid, in view of the previous state of the art and of the invention exercised in producing its subject-matter. [* Thompson et al. vs. Jacobs et al., 377. 34. The specification and claim in both of complainants' patents having clearly indicated that certain characteristic features were regarded as of the essence of the invention, the court declined to enlarge the scope of the patents beyond what was thus explicitly set forth. [* The Keystone Bridge Company vs. The Phoenix Iron Company, 384. 35. The courts have no right to enlarge a patent beyond the scope of its claim as allowed by lawful authority. [Ibid., 384. 36. When the terms of a claim in a patent are clear and distinct (as they always should be) the patentee in a suit brought for infringement is bound by it. (Merrill vs. Yeomans, 94 U. S., 573.) He can claim nothing beyond it. [Ibid., 384. 37. Upon suit brought patentees cannot show that their invention is broader than the terms of their claim; or if broader, they must be held to have surrendered the surplus to the public. [Ibid., 384. 3. Reissue Letters Patent No. 6660, granted Edgar Huson, September 29, 1875, for improvement in wagon-gearing, examined and sustained. [* Halsey vs. Garlick et al., 392. (See Claims, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8; Construction of Claims, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12; Disclaimers; Equivalents, 3, 5; Function and Result; Infringement, 4, 11, 14, 20, 34, 35; Patents 5, Practice in Patent Office 20, 21.) CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES. 1. Section 35 of the act of 1870, which declared all applications to be abandoned that had been rejected or withdrawn prior to the date of its passage, and that had neither been renewed nor a new application filed within six months thereafter, construed to be modified by section 111 of the same act, so as not to include applications pending at the date of its passage. [John P. Mygatt, 59. 2. The word "pending" is used in the section in the same sense as it is applied to a suit—that is, it is pending so long as it remains undecided or in suspense. [Ibid., 59. 3. Acts of limitation will be construed prospectively only, unless a contrary intention clearly appears. [*Vaughn vs. The East Tennessee, Virginia, and Georgia Railroad Company, 256. (See Abandoned Invention, 1, 2, 3; Defenses, 3; Jurisdiction, 5, 6, 7; Patents, 1, 2; Pleadings and Practice, 3, 18, 28; Process, 1; Reissue, 3, 10.) CONTINUING APPLICATION. Cummings applied for a patent on April 12, 1855. His application was rejected twice, and on February 3, 1856, a third rejection followed a reconsideration. From that time until the patent was finally granted the applicant was in ill health and poor. He did not withdraw his application, nor acquiesce in the action of the Patent Office. He made frequent applications to his friends for advances to enable him to prosecute his application. In February, 1859, an attempt was made for an appeal to the Board, but the Commissioner refused to allow it. On March 1, 1864, he presented a petition for the grant o a patent for the same invention. The patent was granted on June 7, 1864. The invention went into public use in 1859. Held (Justices Bradley, Miller, and Field dissenting), that the proceeding to obtain a patent was a continuous one from 1855 until it was granted; that the application of 1855 not being severable from that of 1864 there was no foundation for the allegation that the invention was abandoned to the public, and that it was in public use or on sale for more than two years prior to the inventor's application. There was no abandonment, actual or constructive. [* Smith vs. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. et al., 171. (See Abandoned Application, 2; Jurisdistion, 2.) DAMAGES. 1. The amount of profits on a manufactured article is not always the rule of damages for an infringement. The court should endeavor to ascertain the damages which resulted to the plaintiff by the unauthorized use of his invention. [Magic Ruffle Company vs. Elm City Company, 212. 2. The infringement being of a patent for an improved chain composed of alternate closed links and open spiral links formed of one or more coils of gold tubing, the distinctive feature of the invention consisting in the construction of the open spiral links from a specified material, viz., gold tubing, the damage sustained is not the advantage derived from the use of open links or open spiral links of gold tubing over what would have ensued from the use of closed links or tubing or open spiral links of solid gold, as the two elements of utility and novelty which the new article possesses do not exist in a soldered chain of tubing, or in a chain made of split gold rings of solid wire. [* Mulford et al. rs. Pearce et al., 254. 3. The patented and unpatented articles are entirely distinct from each other, and the result which is found in the former cannot be obtained from the latter; therefore the principle decided in Mowry vs. Whitney is not applicable. [* Ibid., 254. 4. The complainant was found entitled to nominal damages only, the burden of proof being upon him, and it appearing that the proof was meager and indefinite, but four machines made, no established license fee, the profits made being due in part to inventions covered by other patents, and no distinction made between profits accruing from the use of complainant's invention, and that from the other inventions and manufacturers' profits. [* Robertson et al. vs. Blake, 266. 5. The scope of a patented invention having been defined, and the court having declared that the damages could not exceed the profits arising from the use of the improvement, a failure to show any such profits makes nominal damages alone recoverable. [* The Gould's Manufacturing Company v8. Cowing et al., 383. (See Infringement, 31; Pleadings and Practice, 14.) DECREE. 1. The sale of articles made under the sanction of a patent, not considered at the trial of the case, cannot be regarded as covered by a decree in such suit, unless a strong and obvious case of infringement, beyond all question or mere colorable difference, is made out.. [* Buerk vs. Imhaueser et al., 161. 2. A decree for infringement was entered against Wright and a co-defendant, and, pending the report of the master, the former associated another party with him as partner, and engaged in the manufacture of the patented article in another district : Held, that Wright's present partner is so far in privity with the former case by his partnership relation to Wright that he is bound by the decree. [* Dayton vs. Wright & Herring, 170. 3. The purchaser of a patent stands in full privity to a decree obtained by the former owner in a suit for infringement. ['* Ibid., 170. 4. If a patent is surrendered for reissue after final decree or judgment, the surrender has no effect upon a right passed previously into judgment. The right of the patentee then rests on his judgment or decree and not on his patent. [* Mevs vs. Conover, 286. |