The specification of the Cook patent describes a buckle with a slot online lower by way of one in all its end-bars, in order that the tip of the band may be slipped through sidewise as an alternative of being pushed via endwise. The defendants purchase the buckles and severed hoops on the cotton-mills, as scrap-iron, the hoops, when purchased, being in bundles, bent, and being items of unequal lengths, some minimize at one distance from the buckle and some at one other. They so mixed it after they mixed it with a band manufactured from the items of the old band in the way in which described. In utilizing the tie one end of the band is hooked up to at least one end of the buckle by a loop in that finish of the band, and then the band is handed across the bale, and its free end is slipped, by a loop made in it, by way of a slit in the buckle, around the opposite finish of the buckle whereas the bale is beneath strain. As a tie the defendants reconstructed it, although they used the previous buckle with out repairing that. Ct. Rep. 537. There, as here, the lapse of time, and laches primarily based upon it, had been thought-about immaterial, because the reissued patent was for a unique invention from that described in the unique.
Ct. Rep. 1137, in these phrases: ‘It follows from this that if, at the date of the difficulty of the unique patent, the patentee had been aware of the nature and extent of his invention, an inspection of the patent when issued, and an examination of its terms, made with that affordable degree of care which is habitual to and anticipated of men within the management of their very own interests within the unusual affairs of life, would have immediately informed him that the patent had failed absolutely to cover the area of his invention. We’re therefore of opinion that the circuit court docket was clearly in the proper in deciding the reissue void as to the third and fourth claims, on the bottom that the right to apply for it had been misplaced by the laches of the patentee and his assignee. The outline needed to be modified in the reissue, to warrant the new claims in the reissue. The defendants contend that they do not combine the band with the buckle, and don’t infringe the third declare of the Cook patent, or the third, fourth, and fifth claims of the Brodie reissue, or the claim of the McComb patent, as a result of they don’t bale cotton with the tie.
We are subsequently of opinion that the defendants have infringed the third claim of the Cook patent, the third, fourth, and fifth claims of the Brodie reissue, and the declare of the McComb patent. The Cook patent expired March 2, 1879; the Brodie patent, March 22, 1880; and the McComb patent, January 29, 1882. The plaintiffs are the American Cotton-tie Company, (Limited,) a British corporation; James J. McComb, administrator of Mary F. McComb, deceased; and the said James J. McComb, Charles G. Johnson, and Emerson Foote, every in his personal behalf and as a copartner in a agency known as the American Cotton-tie Company. The go well with was brought for the infringement of three several letters patent: No. 19,490, granted to Frederic Cook, March 2, 1858, for an ‘improvement in metallic ties for cotton-bales,’ and extended for seven years from March 2, 1872; reissued letters patent No. 5,333, granted to James J. McComb, as assignee of George Brodie, March 25, 1873, for an ‘enchancment in cotton-bale ties,’ (the original patent having been granted to Brodie as inventor March 22, 1859, and reissued to him April 27, 1869, and extended for seven years from March 22, 1873;) and No. 31,252, granted to J. J. McComb, January 29, 1861, for an ‘improvement in iron ties for cotton-bales,’ and extended for seven years from January 29, 1875. They’re severally known as the Cook, the Brodie, and the McComb patents.
There’s nothing whatever within the drawings to indicate that the patentee claimed to be the inventor of that part, separate from the mix, as a distinct novelty, helpful by itself, or in every other combination; neithe is it so described within the specification. All that can be stated in respect to the drawings is that they present the pitman-spring machine as a part of the bolt intended to be covered by the patent, and described as a mixture of which that device kinds an element. That is an attraction from a decree dismissing a invoice in equity for the infringement of letters patent granted to the plaintiff January 22, 1884, for ‘enhancements in lead-holders for pencils,’ which (omitting the drawings and the explanation of them) absolutely reveals the invention claimed, and the type of lead-holders or lead-tubes previously in use, and known to the patentee, as follows: ‘The thing of my current invention is to hold the lead or crayon in pencils from slipping again within the tube when presesed upon by the tube when pressed upon by the lead. That is an enchantment by the plaintiffs in a suit in fairness from a decree dismissing the invoice of complaint.