Opinion of the court. all the invention we can discover in Reichmann's burner is the peculiar mode of supporting his dome by slender arms attached to a sleeve fitted on to the wick-tube, and the elevation of the chimney on the outer edge of the dome. The latter peculiarity, as we have seen, is a defect which rendered the burner nearly useless. The lamp made and sold by the defendants is substantially exhibited (in a sectional view) in Figure 5, which was patented to L. J. Atwood, October 13th, 1863. The dome and chimney are lifted from their place on the cap of the lamp to show the parts. The allegation of the complainants that the defendant uses Reichmann's invention of peripheral springs (m) around the edge of the dome (h) for steadying his chimney we regard as fallacious. The transformation by a mere trick of words and vague generalities of the arms or supports used by Reichmann to sustain his chimney into peripheral springs may be ingenious, but it cannot stand the test of sober consideration. It is not pretended that Reichmann produced anything more than the arms or supports shown in his original patent, marked k in Figure 1. These were mere slips of metal turned up around the edge of the dome, such as had been in common use for a great period of time. All that Reichmann did new in this regard was to elevate his chimney on the top of the dome. This, in fact, rendered his lamp in the main useless, and the defendant does not copy it, but slips his chimney down around the dome and places it on a platform perforated with holes, which rests upon the cap of the lamp and answers to the bottom or floor of Stuber's gallery. He thus surrounds the flame with the chimney below as well as above the dome and prevents it from being extinguished by drafts of air without obstructing the issue of the light from below the dome. In this respect his lamp is more like Stuber's than Reichmann's. It is true that he keeps his chimney from coming in contact with the dome by surrounding the latter with a fine spiral spring or metallic fringe (m,) but this has no resemblance or analogy to the supporting arms appended by Reichmann to his dome. The question whether the defendant's burner which is called the Comet, contains the other peculiarity of Reichmann's burner, namely, the supporting of the dome by slender arms attached directly to a sleeve fitted snugly upon the wick-tube, admits of more discussion. The dome was supported by slender arms both in Stuber's and Reichmann's lamps, but in the former the arms metal embracing the chimney to not greatly more than what is in the "upright strips of metal," seen in Figure 3, performs the same functions that the last do in the burner illustrated by the said Figure 3.-REP. Opinion of the court. were attached to the surrounding gallery on which the chimney rested, and which was slipped over a raised portion of the base (ƒ) to which the wick-tube was affixed and there held in place by a bayonet fastening, whilst in Reichmann's burner the arms were attached to a sleeve, fitted directly upon the wick-tube so snugly as to support the dome and chimney firmly and steadily, as before described. Now, in the Comet burner of the defendant, the arins supporting the dome (k,) Figure 5, are attached to the platform before mentioned, which answers the place of the gallery floor in Stuber's burner, and the central portion of which is perforated with Fig. 5. an opening or slot (i) so as to pass down over the wick-tube when being placed on the lamp; around this slot or opening the platform is raised next to the wicktube in a conical form (g,) so that the top edge of the raised part touches the wick-tube, and thus helps to give steadiness to the dome and chimney. The arms are attached to this raised part. But this raised portion of the platform is very far from being Reichmann's sleeve, which was a peculiar characteristic in his lamp, and the sleeve arrangement was all that Reichmann pretended to have produced. Its generalization in the reissued patent is simply effected by a dexterous use of words and vague generalities. We are constrained to hold, therefore, that the Comet burner is not an infringement of Reichmann's original patent or of the invention which is exhibited in his original specification. It is proper next to inquire as to the bearing of the reissued patent on the question in litigation between the parties. The defenses made by the defendant against this reissue are, first, Opinion of the court. that it was obtained illegally, wrongfully, and by false pretenses, and because it seeks to claim things of which Reichmann was not the original and first inventor; secondly, that the original patent itself was void, because the only thing in it which Reichmann had any pretense of inventing was anticipated by a man by the name of Michael Collins, as early as 1843. The specification of the reissued patent describes the burner of Reichmann substantially as was done in the original patent, being interspersed, however, with observations as to the uses and objects of particular parts, evidently borrowed from subsequent experience and events. The single claim of the original patent is expanded into seven distinct claims. The first three of these claims, taken with the qualifications which they contain, and limited as they must be by the state of the art at the time when the original patent was applied for, amount to precisely the same thing and to no more than the one claim of the original patent. The first is for a combination of only two elements, it is true, the flat wick-tube and the dome, which combination is found in both the Vienna and Stuber burners; but a qualification is added, that the combination is to be "under the arrangement substantially as shown and described, so that, while directly connected with each other, the said parts shall allow light to pass out or be reflected from between them as set forth." Thus it is made essential to the invention here claimed, not only that the two elements named should be present, but that they should have the arrangement described in the patent, and should have a direct connection with each other, and that the light should be reflected from between them. All these things exist in the Stuber burner except one. In that burner the wick-tube and the dome are not directly connected together. The dome is first connected with the gallery and the gallery with the wick-tube. So that the claim is reduced to the same thing which was claimed in the original patent. The same may be said of the second and third claims. If they mean anything more than the claim in the original patent they are void. Being identical with that they are needlessly multiplied, and by exhibiting a seeming of claims to which Reichmann was not entitled they are calculated to confuse and mislead. We think it proper to reiterate our disapprobation of these ingenious attempts to expand a simple invention of a distinct device into an all-embracing claim, calculated by its wide generalizations and ambiguous language to discourage further invention in the same department of industry and to cover antecedent inventions. Without deciding that a repetition of substantially the same claim in different words will vitiate a Opinion of the court. patent, we hold that where a specification by ambiguity and a needless multiplication of nebulous claims is calculated to deceive and mislead the public, the patent is void. The fourth claim was clearly anticipated by the burner of Stuber. It is in the following words: "A lamp-burner composed of two groups of elements, the first consisting of the base with its wick-tube and wick-adjusting rack and pinions; the second of a chimney-holder, deflector, and such other parts as may be needed for the proper combustion of the fluid so as to produce an illuminating flame, the two groups being united by friction, and the latter when in position in the burner being supported by the former without the intervention of any mechanical device whereby the two may be rigidly connected together, substantially as and for the purposes herein shown and set forth." Everything here claimed is found in Stuber's burner. If this claim is valid Stuber could be enjoined. The addition of a bayonet fastening by Stuber does not destroy the identity of his lamp with the alleged invention described in this claim. It follows that this claim is void for this reason, without reference to other objections which have been suggested in relation to it. One void claim, however, does not vitiate the entire patent, if made by mistake or inadvertence and without any willful default or intent to defraud or mislead the public. Giving to the complainants the whole benefit of this indulgence there is still nothing in the remaining claims which the defendant is called upon to answer. They are merely for combinations of parts in the original burner of Reichmann which the defendant does not use unless the pretense of a claim to peripheral springs as distinguished from Reichmann's arms and supports can be sustained. We have already seen that this cannot be done. Our conclusion, therefore, is that the Comet burner is no infringement of Reichmann's reissued patent so far as that patent is valid. This view of the case makes it unnecessary to discuss the question relating to the alleged invention of Collins. Whilst his conduct and testimony and that of the other witnesses who testify to his invention are susceptible of much criticism, we think it proper to say that we should feel great difficulty in disregarding it altogether. If the models presented by him were really his invention at the time sworn to, the Reichmann patent has no foundation whatever to stand on. But waiving the discussion of this question Opinion of the court. we feel bound to affirm the decree of the Circuit Court for the reasons above stated. DECREE AFFIRMED. COFFIN v. OGDEN. (18 Wallace, 120.) 1. When, in a patent case, a person claims as an original inventor and the defense is a prior invention by the defendant, if the defendant prove that the instrument which he alleges was invented by him was complete and capable of working, that it was known to at least five persons, and probably to many others, that it was put in use, tested, and successful, he brings the case within the established severe tests required by law to sustain the defense set up. 2. Barthol Erbe anticipated William S. Kirkham in the invention of door locks with reversible latches. APPEAL from the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, in which court Coffin filed a bill against Ogden et al. to enjoin them from making door locks of a certain kind, the exclusive right to make which he alleged belonged by the assignment of a patent right to him. The case was one chiefly of fact, involving the question of priority of invention. The court below was of the opinion that the complainant, or rather the person under assignment of whose patent he claimed and was working, had been anticipated in his invention; and dismissed the bill. From that decree the defendants took this appeal. Mr. George Gifford, for the appellant; Mr. B. F. Thurston, contra. Mr. Justice SWAYNE stated the case, recited the evidence, and delivered the opinion of the court. The appellant was the complainant in the court below, and filed this bill to enjoin the defendants from infringing the patent upon. which the bill is founded. The patent is for a door lock with a latch reversible, so that the lock can be applied to doors opening either to the right or the left hand. It was granted originally on the 11th of June, 1861, to Charles R. Miller, assignee of William S. Kirkham, and reissued to Miller on the 27th of January, 1863. On the 10th of June, 1864, Miller assigned the entire patent to the complainant. No question is raised as to the complainant's title, nor as to the alleged infringement by the defendants. The answer alleges that the thing patented, or a material and substantial part thereof, had been, prior to the supposed invention thereof by Kirk |