Opinion ID: 1475436
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Validity of Reissue Claims 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Text: Appellant contends that claims 3, 4, and 5 are invalid because reissue claims attempting to recover claim 1 of the original patent (1,622,957) which was rejected by the Patent Office. This question was considered by Judge Byers in Philad Co. v. Rader, D.C., 15 F.Supp. 509. He there pointed out the fact that the claims in the reissued patent were narrower than claim 1 which was rejected upon the first application for the patent. He pointed out that the new claims all were confined to the use of the process in waving hair upon the human head; that the clamps described were restricted to those which gripped and that the nature of the covering applied to the roll during heating was specifically described in the new claims, while in the rejected claim it was referred to generally as applying covering members to the roll of hair. These claims (3, 4, and 5) of the reissued patent were clearly narrower than the rejected claim 1. [1] The patentee was not estopped from making these narrower claims, particularly because the claim 1 was rejected upon the patent to Szlanyi, No. 1,400,637, which did not show a method of gripping the hair next the scalp, but did show a pad next the scalp containing a slot through which the strand of hair passed. See John W. Gottschalk Mfg. Co. v. Springfield Wire & T. Co., 1 Cir., 74 F.2d 583. However, in view of the prior art patents to Popin, No. 1,447,997, and to Szlanyi, No. 1,400,637, the word clamp used in defining the first step of the process described in claim 4 should be construed to cover only a clamp having a gripping action. Appellant contends in its brief that claim 6 [2] is void as a new claim without proper showing or oath and that it is also invalid for laches and because of intervening rights. The application for the second reissue patent was based partly upon the necessity for disclaimer arising under 35 U.S.C.A. §§ 65, 71, R.S. §§ 4917, 4922, because of the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Naivette, Inc., v. Bishinger, 61 F.2d 433), and partly upon the statute permitting the reissue of a patent whenever any patent is wholly or partly 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. 35 U.S.C.A. § 64, R.S. § 4916, as amended May 24, 1928, 45 Stat. 732. In the oath accompanying the application for the second reissue it is stated that applicant claimed as his invention or discovery more than he had a right to claim as new, and that the specification is insufficient or defective particularly in the failure to present the subject matter of claims 6 and 10 to 14, inclusive, submitted herewith. Then follows a statement that the error which constituted the inadvertence, accident, or mistake, was the belief that claims 5 and 6 and 9 to 11, were valid and that until the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit wherein claims 5, 6, and 11 were held invalid, and 9 and 10 were held valid, the applicant was not advised of the invalidity of these claims. It is thus apparent that the application was predicated upon the admitted invalidity of claims 5, 6, and 11 of the first reissue patent. But instead of expressly disclaiming claims 5, 6, and 11 the applicant sought a reissue of the patent with these apparatus claims omitted, and eight new apparatus claims substituted, in addition to claim 6 for the process. The apparatus claims were subsequently withdrawn and the second reissue patent was granted, containing the new process claim No. 6. There was no holding in the decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that any process claim of the Mayer patent in suit was invalid. On the contrary, the only two process claims involved were held valid. No necessity arose under that decision for a modification of the process claims and none is suggested in the application. Claim 6 provides for securing the rod against rotation upon the clamp after the hair has been rolled up on the rod. The specification of the patent and of the first reissue did not mention the attachment of the rod with the hair curled upon it to the clamp next the scalp, either for the purpose of preventing the reverse rotation of the rod, or otherwise. In order to sustain the validity of claims 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the patent it is necessary to assume that those familiar with the hair dressing art would know that the hair must be wound upon the rod under tension and that, having been so wound, the tension retained during the heating process. We hold in sustaining these claims that inasmuch as the specifications and drawing disclosed the use of a perforated clamping device with a gripping action which would in fact retain the tension, the claims must be liberally construed in the light of these disclosures and that as so construed were valid. However, in claim 6 the patentee seeks to incorporate, as a step in its method, the making fast of the curling rod, with the hair wound upon it, to the clamp next to the scalp. As there is no basis in the original specification for such a step it could not be validly incorporated into a reissue and for that reason it is void. Union Paper Collar Co. v. Van Dusen, 23 Wall. 530, 557, 23 L.Ed. 128; Michigan Central R. Co. v. Consolidated Car-Heating Co., 6 Cir., 67 F. 121, 126; Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U.S. 354, 395, 5 S.Ct. 174, 6 S.Ct. 451, 28 L.Ed. 665. In view of this conclusion, it is unnecessary to consider the question of intervening rights which appellant raises in regard to this claim.