Moneys recovered on judgments in suits, or voluntary payments under the first patent, cannot be recovered back upon the surrender. The title to these moneys does not depend upon the patent, but upon the voluntary payment or the judgment of the court. Moffitt v. Gaar, 1 Fish. 610; s. c. 1 Black. 273; 1 Bond 315.

A reissued patent may be issued to the assignee of the original, when he requests it and makes the application, although he has made an assignment of it which is on record. Havemeyer et al. Assignees, 2 Dec. Com. 5.

A reissued patent must be granted in the name of the patentee, or, in case of his death, or of an assignment of the whole or of an undivided part of the original patent, then to his executors, administrators, or assigns. James D. Wright, 10 O. G. 587; N. B. Fassett, 11 O. G. 420. A patent having been reissued to the inventor will not be reissued also to his assignee whose assignment was not recorded before the reissue to the inventor. Andrew Whiteley, 1 Dec. Com. 79.

A clerical error in a patent will be corrected without fees, if it occurred through the fault of the office; but if through the fault of the patentee, it will be corrected only by a reissue on the usual terms. James Cochrane, 1 Dec. Com. 60.

A reissued patent will not be antedated to the time when the application for it was made. Andrew Whiteley, 1 Dec. Com. 72.

An application for a reissue must point out the particular defects and show how and in what manner the patent is thereby rendered inoperative and invalid. Pfaudler, 23 (). G. 269.

An application for a reissue must specifically point out the defects in the patent. A mere expression of opinion is not sufficient. Timken, 24 O. G. 1089.

A statement that the error arose from a misunderstanding or mistake of the attorney is not sufficient. Wilkins, 24 O. G. 1271.

An application for a reissue must show how the supposed errors arose. Timken, 24 O. G. 1089.

In applications for reissue, the proof there required should be submitted to the commissioner in person, and if the proof is satisfactory, the amendment will then be examined in the usual manner. Isaac Winslow, 9 O. G. 795.

A stranger who has no application or patent that interferes with a patent, can not oppose the granting of a reissue. New Process Fermentation Co., 23 O. G. 629.

An applicant for reissue will not be allowed to establish priority as against a patentee whose patent has expired. J. L. Mason, 9 Ô. G. 1196.

A reissued patent will not be granted after the term of the original has expired, since no right of action could accrue under it, even if it were antedated. Andrew Whiteley, 1 Dec. Com. 70.

No one is liable upon a reissued patent for alleged infringements which took place before it issued, but after its date. Andrew Whiteley, 1 Dec. Com. 72.

Any claims may be justly embodied in a reissue which could have been allowed in the original application, although it enables the patentee to control devices which, though different in construction, are substantially the equivalents of the patented invention. Bissell & Moore Manuf. Co., 2 Dec. Com. 157; Borntraeger, 16 O. G. 358.

If the original patent was taken out for a mechanical apparatus, the reissue can not claim a process. Pfaudler, 22 O. G. 1881.

1

Whether an application for a reissue is sufficient must be determined by the statements therein contained, without reference to the action on the merits in the case before the granting of the patent. Timken, 24 O. G. 1089.

A patentee may apply for a reissue although an interference is pending against the original patent, but when the reissue is granted it may be substituted in the interference in the place of the original patent. Gay, 19 O. G. 1496.

If the original patent shows four regenerators arranged in pairs and varied in size, the reissue may state the reason for the variance. C. William Siemen, 12 O. G. 626.

If a party in order to avoid an interference takes a claim out of an application and files a new application for this, and the patent therefor is first issued, he may on a reissue of the later patent claim a device shown in the original application, although it is shown in the patent first issued. Kirby, 16 O. G. 1095.

If a reissue does not refer to a specific claim, it is an abandonment of it, although it was referred to in the original patent. McCormick, 17 O. G. 267.

A reissue may indicate additional uses to which the invention may be put. Palmer, 17 O. G. 976.

Where one patent claims an improvement of an entire machine, and also shows without claiming a particular improvement of one of its parts, and a later patent claims only the particular improvement, matter which relates only to that part and which is shown in both, but not claimed in either of the patents, may be embraced in a reissue of a later patent. Sylvanus D. Locke, 16 O. G. 1149.

If a patentee makes a variation in the location of the parts, he is not entitled in a reissue to claim all the results that follow in the train of such a variation. Nicholas Seibert, 12 O. G. 268.

This clause does not authorize a radical departure from the original invention and the setting up in the reissue of a substantially different invention. No amount of proof regarding an entirely different invention, however satisfactory it may be in showing that the same was within the knowledge of the inventor at the time of applying for his original patent, could justify its introduction therein by a reissue. A. Dreckerhoff, 12 O. G. 429.

If the patentee never contemplated the use of a sub-combination without including an additional element, he can not claim the sub-combination in a reissue. Redmond v. Parham, 16 O. G. 359.

A reissue will not be granted if there has been unreasonable delay in applying for it. Flynn, 23 O. G. 2029.

The same rule governs in cases of reissue as adopted by the courts, and it is for the office to determine, by comparison of the patent and the application, whether the scope of the original invention is enlarged. Aldrich & Eames, 9 O. G. 407.

An amendment may be introduced into a reissue, if it only explains the manner in which the device is to be operated. N. J. Donaldson, 4 O. G. 4.

An inventor is entitled to all the benefits of his improvement, and is entitled to a reissue, although he may not have fully anticipated its value. Samuel F. Day, 1 Dec. Com. 4.

It can not be objected to a claim in an application for reissue for the first time, that the specified invention has been abandoned since the date of the original patent, because not urged before, and having gone into extensive use. Conklin & Stafford, 2 O. G. 543.

An application for reissue should not be examined in the light of the state of the art as it existed subsequent to the filing of the original application. Carroll v. Morse, 9 O. G. 453.

An application for reissue will be granted, if it appears the new matter was omitted through inadvertency or mistake in the original application. Elias Ingraham, 3 Dec. Com. 164.

A participial claim to "arranging " devices, instead of to the devices themselves, having been granted under a lax practice, should be made to conform to the present practice in revising the application for reissue. Calista E. Cox, 3 O. G. 2.

An applicant for reissue is entitled to make the corrections which he might properly have made after filing his original application. C. W. Baldwin, 9 O. G. 639.

No patent should be allowed to issue upon an application for a reissue until all the rights of the applicant are settled. Doty v. Osborne, 1 Dec. Com. 77.

If, in view of the state of the art as exhibited by the references cited, the applicant presents only a colorable variation or equivalent construction, a reissue will not be granted. T. Plumleigh, 3 O. G. 29.

If the patentee finds himself hindered in his rights to any extent by reason of an error in the specification, the defect may be cured by a reissue. Mathew Andrew, 2 Dec. Com. 75; C. B. Cottrell, 9 O. G. 495.

If a patentee did not understand the philosophy of a feature in his machine at the time when he applied for a patent, he can not insert a claim for an art or method in a reissue. Seibert, 16 O. G. 262.

If an applicant would not have been allowed in his original patent the claim set up, he can not have it by reissue. John E. Wooten, 3 O. G. 521. It is new matter to describe in the reissue application various other uses to which the invention could be applied. Robert Bragg, 8 O. G. 985. A use of the invention being suggested in a reissued patent not mentioned in the original application for a patent, such suggestion of new matter ought not to be allowed in the reissue, without disclaimer of such new matter. Horatio Allen, 2 O. G. 89.

Several parts of a patented machine which will together constitute a new invention not mentioned in the original, can not be claimed by themselves on a reissue. Wheeler & Wheeler, 4 O. G. 5; Aldrich & Evans, 9 O. G. 407.

If an application is forfeited through neglect to pay the final fee, the applicant is not entitled to have the same invention embraced in the reissue of a previous patent on the ground that it was afterwards patented to another. Nehemiah T. Folsom, 2 Dec. Com. 170.

Where the ambiguity is explained in a manner not inconsistent with the original invention, an amendment may be allowed upon sworn statements showing that the matter so introduced was a part of the original invention. Peter R. Gollstein, 11 O. G. 1061.

Although estoppel might operate as between the parties, the grant of the reissued patent, upon proof of priority of invention, was not barred. David E. Roe, 5 O. G. 397.

In an application for reissue, the words "or their equivalents," referring to a definite device, add nothing that the applicant would not be entitled to without them. W. H. McLellan, 2 O. G. 89; Continental Windmill Co., 2 Dec. Com. 74.

If one is entitled, upon his invention, to more than is secured to him by the patent already granted, the safe and proper remedy is by reissue. Paul & W. C. Bramwell, 2 Dec. Com. 76.

A patentee should be held rigidly to the language adopted in his patent, unless good reason appears for departing from it. If new terms or new descriptive matter is introduced, the patentee must show good cause for its introduction, or it will be stricken out. Henry M. Underwood, 1 O. G. 549.

A reissue will not be granted for matter embraced in a prior foreign patent to the inventor which has expired. C. W. Siemens, 11 O. G. 1107.

A disclaimer contained in a patent, and which has no reference to the invention described, may be omitted in a reissue without rendering it liable to the objection of new matter. Hermann & Taylor, 10 O. G. 865. If a disclaimer was inserted by mistake or inadvertence, it may be withdrawn on the reissue. Daniels v. Chesterman, 13 O. G. 4.

An admission that another was a prior inventor may be shown to have been made by mistake. Daniels v. Chesterman, 13 O. G. 4.

If a party who invents one species before any other person invents either the genus itself or any of its species, obtains a patent only for the species, he may insert a claim for the genus in a reissue. Ewart, 17 O. G. 448.

A party who has obtained a patent with a specific claim may insert a generic claim in a reissue, although he abandoned a specific claim in order to get the patent. Ewart, 17 O. G. 448.

If the original patent is for a specific device, a reissue can not add another specific claim, although the original specification referred to a prior application in which it was contained. McClintock, 17 O. G. 267.

If the original patent contains a generic claim and a specific claim, the reissue can not insert another specific claim, although it was described in the original patent. McCormick, 17 O. G. 267.

A reissue which enlarges or expands a claim will not be allowed after an unreasonable delay. Lee, 23 O. G. 342.

Nothing but what was shown in the original specification, drawings, or model, can be introduced into a reissue. W. C. Dodge, 1 Dec. Com. 27; Joseph Ridge, Assignor, 1 Dec. Com. 46; Willis Humiston, 1 Dec. Com. 47; Aberdeen Keith, 2 Dec. Com. 69; Galen Orr, 2 Dec. Com. 113; Wm. A. Lewis, 3 Dec. Com. 82; George E. Waring, Jr., 3 Dec. Com. 228; Elisha Waters, 8 O. G. 399; Nehemiah T. Folsom, 2 Dec. Com. 170; Hicks, 16 O. G. 546; Fauck v. Doty, 13 0. G. 322.

The specification may be amended in a reissue by the model originally filed, and the model or drawings may be amended by each other, but not by the specification. W. C. Dodge, 1 Dec. Com. 27; Elizabeth Hawkes, 1 Dec. Com. 37.

An inventor can not insert a claim for a feature in a reissue which is not shown in the original specifications, drawings or model, although it was contained in the machine made before the filing of the application. J. S. Warren, 10 O. G. 1.

If there is a model and a drawing, no evidence outside of the record is admissible to prove the scope or detail of the original invention. Stockwell v. Haines, 12 O. G. 137.

A model may be a basis for reissue, although forming no part of the patent. C. W. Baldwin, 9 O. G. 639.

If the original model shows a certain feature, the patentee may claim it in a reissue, although he did not understand the philosophy of its operation at the time he applied for a patent. Seibert, 16 O. G. 262.

If the claim sought to be inserted in a reissue is not described or referred to in the original specification, nor shown in the drawing, its existence in

model must be a matter of certainty and not merely of conjecture. Stockwell v. Haines, 12 O. G. 137.

If the specification describes the invention as shown in the drawing and the drawing contradicts the model, a reissue can not be granted for a feature shown in the model, but proved by the drawing not to be a part of the invention. Hunt, 15 O. G. 831.

If a part of a model which may be located in several ways is lost, the patentee will not be permitted to supply it and locate it in a particular way, whereby a certain result may be produced, except upon satisfactory proof that it was so located originally. Nicholas Seibert, 12 O. G. 268. Secondary evidence of the form of the model is not competent, although it has been destroyed. F. A. Williams, 14 O. G. 202.

If a reissue has been granted for one division, the original patent is annulled and no subsequent application can be made for another division. Whiteley & Gage, 1 Dec. Com. 53; Andrew Whiteley, 1 Dec. Com. 70.

The several divisions of a reissue must be issued to the same party. They can not be issued to different parties. Smith, 16 O. G. 1233.

If more than one invention is claimed in an application for a reissue, a division may be required. Lippincott, 16 O. G. 632.

A patent may be issued for one division of a reissue application, and subsequently a patent may be issued for the remaining divisions. Greaves, 18 O. G. 623.

A patentee who has discovered that certain elements of a combination are capable of a more extended use than is disclosed in the patent, can not have a reissue in a division with a claim of these special parts for the general effects. James Powell, 13 O. G. 911.

If an applicant elects to divide his claims, he can reinstate the claim that has been eliminated when the other is rejected. Preston, 17 O. G. 853.

SEC. 4917. Whenever, through inadvertence, accident or mistake, and without any fraudulent or deceptive intention, a patentee has claimed more than that of which he was the original or first inventor or discoverer, his patent shall be valid for all that part which is truly and justly his own, provided the same is a material or substantial part of the thing patented; and any such patentee, his heirs or assigns, whether of the whole or any sectional interest therein, may, on payment of the fee required by law, make disclaimer of such parts of the thing patented as he shall not choose to claim or to hold by virtue of the patent or assignment, stating therein the extent of his interest in such patent. Such disclaimer shall be in writing, attested by one or more witnesses, and recorded in the patent office; and it shall thereafter be considered as part of the original specification to the extent of the interest

4