LABELS Continued.

made by other persons. Both are affixed in some manner to the goods they
designate, and are not an essential constituent of the merchandise itself. Id.
4. The use of a label in the sale of the merchandise it is intended to designate prior
to the registry of such label in the Patent Office amounts to a publication
thereof, and is a defeat of right agreeably to the provisions of the copyright
law, of which the label act of June 18, 1874, is a part. *Marsh et al. v. War-
ren et al., 394.

LACHES.

See Abandonment; Trade-marks, 17.

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES. See Assignment and License, 9.

LICENSE. See Assignn:ent and License; Employer and Employé, 4, 5, 6; Injunction, 8.
LIMIT OF PATENT PROTECTION.

1. A buckle or bale-tie sold for ordinary commercial use passes beyond the monopoly
of the patent, and cannot be followed or controlled in its subsequent disposi-
tion. *The American Cotton Tie Company v. Simons et al., 276.

2. Though the words "Licensed to use once only" were stamped upon the buckles,
and words of like import were contained in the bill-heads and invoices, the
nature of the article and of its use are such that there is an implied parting
with the unrestricted title at the time of sale which is inconsistent with any
such reservation or limitation. *Id.

LOCATION OF PARTS. See Infringement, 50; Invention, 9.

MANDAMUS.

1. Where the supreme court of the District of Columbia had, by an alternative writ
of mandamus, commanded the Commissioner of Patents either to hear and de-
termine in person an interference between a patent and an application which
had been heard by the Assistant Commissioner at a time when the Commis-
sioner was present and engaged in the performance of his official duties, or to
appear and show cause why he refused so to do, and the Commissioner had
made his return to the alternative writ, it was Held that, if nothing had
occurred to abate the writ, letters patent could not be issued on the applica-
tion in interference until the court should either have determined that a suf-
ficient cause had been shown for a refusal to perform the act commanded by
the writ or revoked or rescinded the order. Withington v. Locke, 147.

2. Laches of the party who sued out the alternative writ of mandamus in the prose-
cution of the same, after the return of the Commissioner, will not render the
writ inoperative. Id.

3. The resignation of the Commissioner subsequent to his return will abate the alter-
1 native writ. (United States v. Boutwell, 17 Wall., 604; Secretary v. McGarrahan,
9 Wall., 313.) Id.

4. Upon the abatement of the writ in such a case, the application will resume the
precise position in the Office which it occupied before the writ was issued. Id.
MANUFACTURE AND USE.

The mere making of the invented article more than two years before applying for
letters patent is quite immaterial, and where there is a doubt upon the evidence
as to public use or sale of the article under like circumstances, the doubt should
be resolved against the respondents, upon whom rests the burden of proof.
(Coffin v. Ogden, 18 Wall., 120.) Comstock et al. v. Sandusky Seat Company et

MATERIAL. See Equivalent, 1, 2, 5; Invention, 1, 7, 16, 18; Particular Patents, 21, 79.
MECHANICAL SKILL. See Inventions, 3; Reissues, 7.

To improve the efficient operation of the mechanism described in the patent (Re-
issue No. 1,682, May 31, 1864), by the simple exercise of mechanical skill, does
not constitute invention. The patent is for a practical and useful invention,

MECHANICAL SKILL-Continued.

although the particular improvement is not suggested, and is infringed, not-
withstanding the described mechanism is used only in connection with such
improvement. * Marsh et al. v. Seymour et al., 232.

MISJOINDERS OF INVENTORS. See Joint Inventions, 6, 7.

MODELS. See Applications, 1; Interferences, 11, 12; Priority of Invention, 7; Reissues,
12, 15.

Features contained in the Patent Office model may be incorporated into the draw-
ings and specifications of the letters patent upon reissue without prejudice..
They do not constitute new matter in the sense of the law. *Reissner et al. v.
Anness et al., 260.

NEW MATTER. See Disclaimer, 2; Models, 1; Reissues, 1, 4, 5.

It is no enlargement of the invention to draw the reissue claim so as to cover vari-
ous kinds of bell, the original being laid simply to a gong-shaped bell. The
drawings and specification clearly show that the form of bell is not an essen-
tial characteristic of the invention, and it is manifest that the original claim
must have been unnecessarily limited. *Gong-Bell Manufacturing Company v.
Clark and Hilliard, 190.

NEW TRIAL. See Interference, 4, 5, 9, 10.

A mistake in fact, which could have been avoided with reasonable care, is no
ground for a new trial, particularly where the fact is itself immaterial. Kirch-
ner v. Blair, 47.

NEW USE. See Inventions, 2; Articles of Manufacture, 2.

NOVELTY. See Particular Patents, 40.

1. The method of forming the eyes of picks, as set forth and claimed in Reissue Let-
ters Patent No. 6,951, is new and patentable. To draw down the eyes on a
mandrel between rolling-dies, after the bar has been punched and the metal
set down at either end around the eyes, so that the walls of the eyes are
elongated as desired, and preserved of uniform thickness, is a new step in the
art, and impresses the whole method with the character of novelty. *Klein v.
Park & Co., 157.

2. A possible difference between a patented device and another known to the trade
long before the date of the patent, indicated only by a statement of result in
the specification, will not suffice to establish a difference in invention. *Bur-
rall et al. v. Rumsey et al., 170.

3. To establish this diversity, it will not do to rely on describing the result attained;
the description must show how it can be attained. *Id.

PARTICULAR PATENTS.

AMIDON-Bit-Stock.

1. The novelty of Letters Patent No. 73,279, granted C. H. Amidon, January 14,
1868, for "improvement in bit-stock," sustained. The patent of Amidon is not
anticipated by that of Dexter H. Chamberlain, granted in 1854 for an awl-
holder. The Chamberlain device is not only different in purpose, but is lack-
ing in the peculiarities which distinguish the Amidon bit-stock. * Miller's
Falls Company v. Ives & Co., 309.

BARKER-Buckets for Chain Pumps.

2. A solid rubber chain-pump bucket bearing tightly upon the well-tube bore, with
slightly convex (hemispherical) upper surface, and with a drip-hole through
the bucket length (Reissue No. 6,531, W. C. Barker, July 6, 1875), is infringed
by a solid cylindro-conical metal bucket having a like drip-hole and incased
in a rubber covering, the cylindrical portion of the bucket fitting the tube-bore,

PARTICULAR PATENTS-Continued.

while the cone is superposed. (Patent No. 160,125, D. F. Stowe, February 23,
1875.) *Barker v. Stowe, 362.

3. In both, the contour and elasticity of the bucket permit ready adjustment to ir-
regularities in the tube and hold it in place with the pump at rest, while the
drip-hole allows the retained water to escape below. *Id.

4. It is of no moment that the perforation in defendant's bucket being nearer the
bearing-rim insures the more complete discharge of the water. The function
is not different in the new position, nor does the change involve more than
mechanical skill. *Id.

5. Plaintiff's patent (Reissue 6,531, origiral No. 116,138, June 20, 1871) declared void
by reason of prior knowledge and public use of a bucket possessing the sub-
stantial characteristics of that set forth and claimed.

BARNES-Corset-Spring.

*Id.

6. Patent No. 56,345, granted to S. H. Barnes, July 17, 1866: Held to be invalid by
reason of public use. *Egbert v. Lippman et al., 407.

7. Reissue Letters Patent No. 6,644, granted E. C. Barton, September 14, 1875, for a
toy, construed to be for "the combination of two connected wheels with a
bell or bells arranged between and upon the axle of the wheels, which bells
are connected with the wheels so as to revolve therewith, and to ring when re-
volving." *Gong-Bell Manufacturing Company v. Clark and Hilliard, 190.
8. The invention is patentable, and is infringed by a toy consisting of a pair of
wheels connected by a hollow drum or axle in which are attached bells that
revolve simultaneously with the wheels, and ring while revolving; likewise,
it is infringed by a toy in which one of a pair of wheels connected by bent
metallic rims or axles has an attached sleigh-bell, which is encircled by the
rims, and which revolves with the wheels and rings as it does so. *Id.

BULLOCK, ADAMS, AND SELDEN-Printing-Press.

9. Claim 9 of Letters Patent No. 38,200, granted to Bullock, Adams, and Selden,
April 14, 1863, for "improvement in printing-machines," construed to be for a
combination of the sheath with the fixed knife in the same cylinder. It is
new and patentable. *Bullock Printing-Press Company v. Jones et al., 171.

BURRALL-Corn-Sheller.

10. Letters Patent No. 38,002, granted March 24, 1863, for "improvement in corn-
shellers," do not exhibit any meritorious invention over devices in previous
public use. Burrall et al. v. Rumsey et al., 170.

CUMMINGS-Artificial Gums and Palates.

11. Cummings patent (Reissue No. 1,904) construed to include celluloid and rose-
pearl as equivalents. *Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Company et al. v. Preterre,
324.

CUMMINGS-Catch for Spectacle-Cases.

12. Letters Patent No. 26,891, granted George N. Cummings, January 24, 1860 (ex-
tended 1874), for improved catch for spectacle-cases, are valid, and are not
anticipated by the previous state of the art. *Parker v. Remhof, 374.

13. Letters Patent No. 19,347, granted E. W. Chaffee, February 16, 1858, construed
to be for a flexible-gum mat, having flexible-gum ridges to serve as scrapers,

PARTICULAR PATENTS-Continued.

and cells or inclosed spaces to contain the dirt. *Brown et al. v. Rubber Step
Manufacturing Company et al., 206.

14. The patent is not infringed by a device for carriage and car steps, in which a
series of small rubber hemispheres or pyramids are arranged upon a vulcan-
ized-rubber base-piece, so that they shall project a slight distance above its
surface. *Id.

COLLENDER-Billiard-Cushion.

15. The claim in Reissue Letters Patent No. 2,511, granted to H. W. Collender, March
19, 1867, for "cushions for billiard-tables," construed to be for the art or pro-
cess of making the cushion, and not for the cushion itself, as completed. *Col-
lender v. Bailey, 196.

DE PUY-Printer's Galley.

16. A printer's galley in which the metal facing-strips are secured to the wooden rails
without perforations or roughness in the smooth metal surface (Reissue Let-
ters Patent No. 6,326) is infringed, although the patentee shows and describes
the metal face-strips, with top and bottom flanges, having projecting ledges
which engage with corresponding grooves in the wooden rails, while the de-
fendant uses an L-shaped metal face, to which the wooden back or rail is
secured by screws passing through the foot of the L. Hoe & Co. v. Cole S
Co., 213.

DRAPER-Bobbin and Spindle.

17. The combined spindle and bobbin (Reissue Letters Patent No. 6,016, granted
August 18, 1874)`is novel, useful, and patentable, and is infringed by combining
a spindle and bobbin so that the spindle, bolster, and sleeve will permit a quill-
bobbin of ordinary size to come down and so encompass the same as to take
one bearing upon the sleeve below the top of the bolster, and another upon the
spindle above the sleeve or bolster, the sleeve carrying the whirl between the
bolster and the step. *Draper v. The Potomska Mills Corporation, 192.

ELWELL-Knob-Latch.

18. Reissue Letters Patent No. 3,909, granted April 5, 1870, to the Norwalk Lock Com-
pany (assignees), for "improvement in reversible knob-latches," declared valid.
*Norwalk Lock Company v. Berger, Mathes, et al., 168.

FISH-Kerosene-Lamp Heater.

19. Reissue Letters Patent No. 7,069, granted the Kerosene-Lamp Heater Company
(assignee), April 18, 1876, for lamp-chimney, are valid, and are infringed by Let-
ters Patent No. 156, 149, granted October 20, 1874, to John A. Frey, for a coal-
oil stove. *The Kerosene-Lamp Heater Company v. Littell, 280.

FOOTE-Wire Bag-Fastener.

20. The patent of the complainant (No. 135,899) is for a wire bag-fastener. A pat-
ent of prior date (No. 57,247, August, 1866) to his invention, setting forth a de-
vice of similar structural plan, but made of a slotted metal plate instead of
wire, and intended as fastener for the lacings of shoes and corsets: Held, under
the circumstances of the case, not to affect his patent. *Foote v. Frost et al., 421
21. The shoe-lace fastener was not shown to be practicable, and this, too, although
the place of suit rendered such evidence more than usually accessible. Its ab-
sence, with operativeness disputed, deemed significant, and the substitution
of wire for the metal plate to be more than a mere change of material. If the

PARTICULAR PATENTS-Continued.

first working device thereby resulted, then the prior invention did not antici-
pate that of the complainant. *Id.

FREY-Coal-Oil Stove.

22. Reissue Letters Patent No. 7,751, granted June 19, 1877, are valid, and for the
same invention as the original. *Reissner et al. v. Anness & Blauvelt, 162.

GOODALE-Paper-Bag Machine.

23. The characteristic features of invention protected by Letters Patent No. 24,734,
granted July 12, 1859, stated, and infringement found. *Union Paper-Bag Ma-
chine Company et al. v. Murphy et al., 199.

GRAEBE & LIEBERMANN-Alizarine.

24. Artificial alizarine (Reissue Letters Patent No. 4,321, granted April 4, 1871) is a
composition of matter differing essentially from the dye-stuffs obtained from
the madder-plant and from the chemically pure alizarine of the laboratory. It
is new and useful, and the patent therefor is not invalid simply because the in-
accurate term "alizarine" makes it apparently cover pre-existing products of
the same name. * Anilin et al v. Hamilton Manufacturing Company, 185.

GRAEBE & LIEBERMANN-Dyes.

25. Artificial alizarine differs essentially from the chemically pure alizarine of the lab-
oratory and from the alizarine of the madder-plant. Additional coloring prin-
ciples of distinctive character are contained which render the composite pro-
duct a novel one. *Anilin et al. v. Higgin et al., 335.

26. Reissue Letters Patent No. 4,321 (Div. B), granted Graebe & Liebermann for
improvement in dyes or coloring matters from anthracene, April 4, 1871, are
for the same invention as the original patent, and are valid. *Id.

GRAHAM-Carriage Body and Seat.

27. Reissue Letters Pantent No. 4,780, granted March 5, 1872, to Comstock, Booth
& Booth, assignees, for carriage bodies and seats, examined and sustained.
*Comstock et al. v. Sandusky Seat Company et al., 182.

GREEN-Driven Wells.

23. Reissue Letters Patent No. 4,372, granted to Nelson W. Green, May 9, 1872, for
"the process of constructing wells by driving or forcing an instrument into
the ground until it is projected into the water without removing the earth up-
ward as it is in boring," conform to the original patent, and are valid. *An-
drews et al. v. Wright, 278.

29. The invention disclosed is novel, has not been dedicated or abandoned to the pub-
lic, and the patent therefor covers a true process and not a result. *Id.

GUIDET-Pavement.

30. Letters patent invalid by reason of prior public use.

Brooklyn, 247.

HENRY-Rifled Fire-Arms.

*Guidet v. The City of

31. Letters Patent No. 119,846, granted to Alexander Henry, October 10, 1871, ex-
pired by limitation of law with English patent, granted for fourteen years from