10. 11. 12. Campbell v. Dyson v. Dunham 242 O. G., 253 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Chott v. Ewing, Com. (S.Ct.) 215 O. G., 1264 Cosper v. Gold and Gold 151 O. G. 194 and 168 O. G., 787 Cutler v. Leonard 136 O. G., 438 19. Dunbar v. Schellenger 128 O. G., 2837 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Emmet v. Fullagar 124 O. G., 2178 Field v. Colman 193 O. G. 221 and 247 O. G. 246 Foster v. Antisdel 88 O. G.. 1527 Fowler Car Co. v. Ewing, Com. 238 O. G., 983 Fowler v. Dodge 87 O. G., 895 Frost v. Chase 169 O. G., 945 Fullagar, In re 138 O. G., 259 Gammeter v. Thropp 210 O. G., 1397 Gold v. Gold 150 O. G. 570, 152 O. G., 731 Hathaway et al v. Colman 245 O. G., 1025 Healey v. Inwood 176 O. G., 275 Hisey v. Peters 71 O. G., 892 Kilbourn v. Hirner 122 O. G. 729, 129 O. G., 1841 Kinsman v. Strom 136 O. G., 1769 Lang v. Moore, Com. 172 O. G., 834 Lindmark v. de Ferranti 153 O. G., 1082 50. Lindmark v. Hodgkinson 137 O. G., 228 51. Lindstrom v Ames 168 O. G., 250 Llewellen v. Upson 227 O. G., 376 52. 53. 54. 55. Lowry v. Allen, Com. (S.Ct.) 125 O. G., 2365 58. McFarland v. Watson 146 O. G., 257 59. McKnight v. Pohle 130 O. G., 2069 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. £5. 66. Macbeth-Evans v. Gen. El. Co. 248 O. G., 501 Mason v. Hepburn 84 O. G., 147 Milton v. Kingsley 75 O. G., 2193 67. Moore, Com. . Colburn Mach. Glass 191 O. G., 293 Moore, Com, v. Lindmark 149 O. G., 310 Mortimer v. Thomas v. Brownson 192 O. G., 215 Newcomb v. Thompson 122 O. G., 3013 Newcomb Motor v. Moore, Com. 133 O. G. 1680; 130 O. G. 302 Norling v. Hayes 161 O. G., 1282 Oliver v. Felbel 100 O. G., 2384 Paul v. Johnson 109 O. G., 807 Phillips v. Sensenich 134 O. G., 1806 68. 70. 71. Nelson v. Felsing 142 O. G., 289 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. Podlesak v. McInnerney 120 O. G., 2127 Pope v. McKensie 176 O. G., 1072 Prindle v. Brown 112 O. G., 957 Pym v. Hadaway 129 O. G., 2073 Scott v. Moore, Com. 180 O. G., 607 Smith v. Foley v. Anderson 126 O. G,, 847 Stevens v. Seher 81 O. G., 1932 Sutton and Steele v. Wentworth 204 O. G., 320 Trussed Concrete v. Ewing, Com. 203 O. G., 931 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98.. Union Distilling v. Schneider 129 O. G., 2503 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. Universal Motor Truck v. Universal 197 O. G., 535 Vincent v. Landsiedel 261 O. G., 632 Weintraub v. Hewitt et al 178 O. G., 889 Westinghouse v. Duncan 66 O. G., 1009 Wintroath v. Chapman 248 O. G., 1004 REISSUES. Rules 85 and 86. L. D. UNDERWOOD, Law Examiner. Sec. 4916. Whenever any patent is inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective or insufficient specification, or by reason of the patentee claiming as his own invention or discovery more than he had a right to claim as new, if the error has arisen by inadvertence, accident. or mistake, and without any fraudulent or deceptive intention, the Commissioner shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the duty required by law, cause a new patent for the same invention, and in accordance with the corrected specification, to be issued to the patentee, or, in case of his death or of an assignment of the whole or any undivided part of the original patent, then to his executors, administrators. or assigns, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. Such surrender shall take effect upon the issue of the amended patent. The Commissioner may, in his discretion, cause several patents to be issued for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued letters patent. The specifications and claim in every such case shall be subject to revision and restriction in the same manner as original applications are. Every patent so reissued, together with the corrected specifications, shall have the same effect and operation in law, on the trial of all actions for causes thereafter arising, as if the same had been originally filed in such corrected form; but no new matter shall be introduced into the specification, nor in case of a machine patent shall the model or drawings be amended, except each by the other; but when there is neither model nor drawing, amendments may be made upon proof satisfactory to the Commissioner that such new matter or amendment was a part of the original invention, and was omitted from the specification by inadvertence, accident, or mistake, as aforesaid. Rule 85. A reissue is granted when the original patent is inoperative or invalid by reason of a defective or insufficient specification, or by reason of the patentee claiming as his invention or discovery more than he had a right to claim as new, provided the error has arisen through inadvertence, accident, or mistake, and without any fraudulent or deceptive intention. Reissue applications must be made and the specifications sworn to by the inventors if they be living. Reissue Defined A reissued patent is in effect an amendment of the original patent made to cure some defect or insufficiency in the original; it is a patent which merely secures the patent rights more definitely in some particular wherein the original patent was defective. Origin of Reissue Statute Until the Act of 1832 the law did not specifically provide for the amendment of a patent by reissue. But patents were nevertheless reissued in amended form for the purpose of securing to the inventor the monopoly to which he was originally entitled. The legality of this procedure was brought into question in Grant v. Raymond, 6 Peters 218, where it was held by the Supreme Court that the reissue was valid notwithstanding the absence of statutory authority to grant it. The decision. was made in January, 1832, and the first reissue statute followed in July of that year. This was followed by the law of 1836 which does not greatly differ from our present statute, Sec. 4916, and later by the Act of 1870. The statutory conditions are (1) "inoperative or invalid"; (2) "defective or insufficient specification"; (3) "inadvertence, accident, or mistake"; (4) "same invention". Inoperativeness and Invalidity The right to the reissue of a patent exists only in cases where the patent is inoperative or invalid. It is not necessary that the patent be wholly inoperative, that is, inoperative to the extent that no protection whatever is afforded. It is sufficient if it fails to secure to the patentee all of that which he has invented and claimed. Hobbs v. Beach 180 U. S., 393; 94 O. G., 2357; 1901 C. D., 311. Even though a patent is held valid by the courts it may be reissued. Thomson v. Worster, 114 U. S., 104, 31 U. S., 913. Defective or Insufficient Specification The inoperativeness or invalidity must result from a defective or insufficient description, drawings, or claims, or by reason of the patentee claiming as his own invention more than he had a right to claim as new. Defects in drawings to make them harmonize with the description, or the converse, may be corrected by reissue. (Moore vs. U. S. ex rel Colburn Machine Glass Co., 191 O. G., 293; 40 App. D. C., 201). Even where an error has occurred in both description and drawings it may be corrected if the omitted feature were indispensable to the operation of the device and inferable from the original disclosure in the light of the existing art. (Eames v. Andrews, 122 U. S., 40; 39 O. G., 1319). But the reissue may not change the original to the extent of introducing new matter therein, this being expressly prohibited by the statute. This provision that "no new matter shall be introduced into the specification", was not inserted in the reissue statute however until 1870, prior to which the privilege of reissue had been greatly abused by patentees broadening their patents from time to time to draw within them devices invented and placed upon the market subsequently to the patentee's invention, which abuses it was the purpose of this provision to minimize. While defects and insufficiencies of the description and drawings may be corrected, patentees generally avail themselves of the reissue privilege for the purpose of restricting an unduly broad claim, or for expanding an unduly restricted claim, and more generally for the latter purpose. The extent and nature of permissible amendment by reissue may be determined by keeping in mind the general purpose of the statute which aims to secure to the inventor adequate protection for the invention disclosed by him and which it was the purpose to protect by the original patent. Inadvertence, Accident or Mistake The error in the patent must have arisen by inadvertence, accident or mistake, and without any fraudulent or deceptive intention. "Inadvertence signifies want of attention; mistake, want of knowledge; accident, circumstances over which the inventor had no control" (Robinson). Apparently it was the intention, by the use of the words "inadvertence, accident, or mistake" to cover every failure to secure adequate protection arising otherwise than through deliberation or with a purpose to deceive or defraud (Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Aluminum Stopper Co., 108 Fed. Rep., 845; 1901 C. D., 450). No instance of a reissued patent vitiated through fraud is known to the writer. Failure through a deliberate act is very frequent, as where, in the original prosecution of a case, a claim is made and canceled after its rejection upon references. The abandonment of a claim under |