Court Opinion

ID: 9417008
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:00:25.371308+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:33.195640
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD,
with whom concurred Justices MILLER and DAVIS, dissenting.
Applicants for a patent are required to file in the Patent Office a written description of their invention and of the manner and process of making, constructing, and using the same, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which it appertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make, construct, and use the same; and in the ease of a machine he must explain the principle thereof and the best mode in which he has contemplated applying that principle, so as to distinguish it from other inventions. Patents granted with*236out a compliance with those conditions are invalid, as the express requirement of the act of Congress is that every inventor or discoverer shall do so, before he shall receive a patent for his invention or discovery.*
Letters-patent were granted to the complainant on the second of August, 1863, to take eftect from the secoud of February prior to the date of the patent. Seed-planter is the name of the invention given in the patent, but in the introductory part of the specification it is denominated “ new and useful improvements in seed-planters for planting corn and smaller grains.” Very minute description is given of the machine and of the several devices of which the machine is composed, for the declared purpose of enabling others skilled in the art to make and use the invention. Suffice it to say, without entering into details, that of all the numerous devices described as ingredients of the machine not one of them is new, nor is it claimed that the patentee either invented the machine or any one of the ingredients of which it is composed. "What he claims'in that patent is as follows: (1.) The oscillating horizontal wheels' or distributors in tbe bottom of the hopper, having slots and tubes of various sizes, in combination with the stationary caps and pins for the discharge of different kinds and qualities of seeds. (2.) He also claims the arrangement of the covering rollers, mounted as described, and performing the functions of covering the seed, elevating the cutters in turning the machine, and also in adjusting the cutters to different depths.
Tested by the descriptive portion of the specification the better opinion is that the second claim is also for a combination, but in the view taken of the case it is unimportant whether it be regarded as a method of accomplishing the. described result or as a combination of the described ingredients to eftect the same end, as it is quite clear that the patentee does not claim that he is the original and first inventor of any one of the several devices of which the entire machine is composed. Beyond all doubt the invention con*237sisted of the two combinations described in the respective claims, and it is equally certain that the letters-patent were in all respects sufficient to secure the full enjoyment of the patented machine to the patentee. Nevertheless the patentee surrendered the same, and on the sixteenth of February, 1858, the same was reissued to him with amended specification which contains only one claim. Instead of claiming a combination of old ingredients, as in the original patent, he claimed in the. reissued patent a shoe for opening a furrow, which has a convex edge in front and a seeding-tube in its rear end, so that it may cut through any grass, open out a furrow, and hold it open until the seeds are deposited in the same, substantially as set forth in the specification.
Like the original patent the reissued patent was in form both operative and valid, but inasmuch as it was not sufficiently comprehensive to supersede all other improvements the patentee surrendered it for a second time and caused the original invention to be reissued in five parts, embracing several claims, all of which except one are involved in the present action.
Surrendered patents cease to be a cause of action from the moment the surrender takes place, nor can the owner of the patent recover, even for an infringement which preceded the surrender, unless the claim for profits or damages had passed into judgment' before the surrender took place. Such a patent, though inoperative as a cause of action, may be admitted as evidence to support or disprove an issue that the reissued patent is not for the same invention as the original. Reference may also be made to such patent, as to a repealed statute, to aid in the construction of a reissued patent, if the latter is ambiguous, but it ceases to be operative for any other purpose just as much so as a repealed statute, and can never have the effect to enlarge or diminish the operative words of a reissued patent.
Patents are public grants, and every person claiming any right under such an instrument must show that the right claimed is secured by the instrument; nor can he be benefited by showing that the right claimed was secured by a *238surrendered patent, unless the reissued patent also secures the same.
Viewed iu the light of these suggestions it is clear that the rights of the complainant in this case depend solely upon the last-mentioned reissued patents, which are the patents mentioned in the bill of complaint, and which it is alleged by the complainant that the respondents have infringed.
Defences of various kinds are set up by the respondents to the allegations of the bill of complaint, as follows: (1.) That the complainant is not the original and first iuventor of the improvements described in the said several patents mentioned in ¿he bill of complaint. (2.) They deny that the said new patents were issued in good faith, and they allege that said reissued patents are not for the same invention as that described and embodied either in the original patent or in the prior reissues of the original patent. (3.) That the five last-mentioned reissued letters-patent are severally invalid in law and void aud of no effect, and that they do not confer any such right or monopoly to the complainant as he alleges and pretends to claim.
Enough has already been remarked to show that the original patent was a combination of old ingredients by which the described result was effected; or, in other words, that the patented invention consisted iu a new combination of the described ingredients, every one of which was proved to be old. Old ingredients are not the proper subjects of letters-patent in any other form than as a combination, for the plain reason that nothing is the proper subject of a patent which is not both new and useful.
Reissued patents must be for the same invention as the original, and that condition is just as applicable to a second reissue as to the first; nor is the second i’eissue relieved in any respect from the full force of'that condition in a case where the invention in the reissue is divided into several parts.
Undoubtedly a new and useful combination consisting of old ingredients may be the proper subject of letters-patent if the combination produces a new and useful result, but the *239act of Congress does not authorize the patentee to surrender such a patent and to reissue the same for the separate ingredients, for the plain reason that the ingredients are old, and for the additional reason that a patent for a separate ingredient is not the same as the combination of several ingredients.*
Authorities to support these propositions are unnecessary as they are self-evident, nor is it necessary to do more than to refer to the several claims of the several reissues under consideration to show that every one of those reissues are invalid, both for the reason that the alleged improvements old, and also for the reason that the invention embodied in each of the reissued patents is different from the one secured by the original patent. Even the court here admits that each one of those reissues is “for a distinct and separate part of the original invention alleged to have been made by the complainant,” full proof of which is exhibited in the claims of the respective reissued patents.† They are as follows:
1. No. 1036. — Appended to that patent is a claim much more comprehensive than is to be found in either of the four other patents, but it is plainly not a claim for a combination, nor one for the whole machine, as was admitted in argument by the complainant. What he there claims is a seed-planting machine constructed principally of framework, the front part of which is supported on not less than two runners, or shoes, with upward inclining edges, and the rear part is supported on not less than two wheels, the latter being arranged to follow the former.
Evidently that claim is not intended to cover the whole machine; nor would it benefit the complainant even if it could receive that construction, as it is not pretended that he was the original and first inventor of such a planting machine, nor that the specification of the original patent professed to describe such an original invention. Machines of the kind have existed for a very long period before the *240date of the complaiuaut’s patent, even for a period whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary.
2. No. 1037. — Nothing is claimed in this patent except the construction of a shoe or ruuuer for a seed-planting machine, with an upward inclining edge, with its point sufficiently raised so that it will climb up and over, or cut and break through intervening obstacles without materially forcing the earth laterally at its front part, and widening towards the rear end so as to open a furrow in which the seed to be planted may be deposite*}, and long enough to furnish a support to the framework of the machine. Explanations of that patent are certainly unnecessary, as it is plain that the claim is for distinct and separate ingredients of the combination embodied in the original patent.
3. No. 1038. — Under this patent the complainant claims a hinged joint between the point of the tongue and the rear part of the machine in combination with a seed-planting machine, so that one part of the framework may be raised, lowered, adjusted, and supported on the other part. Nor is any argument necessary to show that the claim of the patent is for one of the separate and distinct ingredients of the combination embodied in the original patent, all of which were confessedly old.
4. No. 1039. — Two claims are made in this patent as follows: (1.) The seat for the attendant, or, in the language of the claim, the mounting of the attendant upon the machine or seed-planter, wherein the seed-dropping mechanism is operated by hand, in such a position that he may readily see the previously made marks upon the ground, and operate the dropping mechanism to conform thereto. (2.) He also claims a lever, in combination with a seed-planting machine, or its equivalent, by which the driver or second attendant may raise or lower that part of the framework that carries the attendant and the seeding devices.
Manifestly the lever or its equivalent is the principal subject-matter of that claim, reference being made to certain other parts of the seed-planter merely as a means of describing the functions to be performed by the level’, and the *241results to be attained by its use; nor does it x-equire any argument to show that the lever is old, as it is matter of common knowledge that it was well known long before the original patent of the complainant was issued.
5. No. 1040. — Two claims are also made by the patentee in this patent: (1.) He claims a pair of auxiliary wheels and an axle, in combination with the seed-planting machine, carried mainly upon not less than two runners and two covering-wheels, for the double purpose of taking a portion of the weight off from the runners atid the other wheels, and for affording means of readily converting the machine from a hand-planter to an automatic seed-sowex*. (2.) He also claims hanging the axle of the auxiliary wheels on hinged or adjustable arms or levers, so that more or less of the machine may be placed upon the auxiliary wheels.
All necessity for any remarks upon those claims is superseded by the admission that they are not infringed by the respondents.
Four of the five reissues are included in the charge, and the complainant also charges that the respondents have infringed five other reissued patents held by him, which also secure to him the exclusive right to the l’espective improvements therein described, all of which appertain to the same machine for planting corn and smaller grains.
Reference will first be made to the original patent from which those several reissues are derived. Like the preceding reissued patents, these were all derived from a single original patent, issued May 8th, 1855, as appears by the record, which it is claimed is an improvement upon the prior original patent.
Doubtless the patentee made some change in the original machine, as appears by the descriptive portion of the specification ; as for example, he enlarged the l’ollei’s, increased the length of the side pieces, connected those pieces by cross pieces, and constructed the frame in two pai’ts, denominated fi’out and real’, placing the long seat for the driver on the fi’out end, in order that he may slide forward or back, to tilt the machinery when necessary to deepen the furrow, or *242to raise the front of the shoes from, the ground, as occasion calls for such a movement; but he invented no new ingredient or device, nor did he introduce any element into the machine which was not previously well known, all of which will sufficiently appear from the claim when compared with the drawings, without reproducing the details of the specification annexed to the patent. It contains but a single specification in that regard, which, in substance and effect, is as follows: "What he claims is the runners, with their valves, in combination with the hoppers and their plates, together with the adjustment of the valves by means of levers and cams, and the driver’s weight, for the purpose of carrying and droppiug seeds by each vibration of the lever, and to regulate the depth of the planting.
Tested by the description contained in the specification it is not doubted that the pateut was a valid one for the described combination, which, beyond all doubt, is composed of all ingredients. Regarded as an invention for a combination it may be regarded as an improvement upon the original invention described in the first-mentioned patent, but it is quite clear that it contains no devices except such as had long before been well known to mechanics.
Though operative and valid still it was not satisfactory to the complainant, because not sufficiently effective to shut out other improvements for planting seeds. Accordingly, on the tenth of November, 1857, he surrendered the patent and the same was, on the same day, reissued to him with a single claim, as follows: He claims the locating the seat for the driver in the rear of the supporting axle in combination with the hinged frames or hinged joint, so that as the driver moves forward or back, cu his seat, the rear frame may act as a lever for loweriug or raising the seed part of the machine, and thus throw it into or out of the ground, as circumstances may require.
Probably it would be difficult to frame a claim which would more exactly embody the true nature of the actual improvement, but still it was not satisfactory to the com plainant, and on the eleventh of December, 1860, he sur *243rendered the patent, and the same was reissued to him in five separate patents, as follows:
1. No. 1091. — Two claims are contained in this patent as follows: (1.) The placing of both the driver and the person who operates the seed-slides or valves, in such a position on the seed-planter that each may attend to his particular duty without interfering with that of the other. (2.) The so locating the seats or stands for those, persons, in combination with the machine, that the weight of one of the persons may be used to counterbalance or overbalance the weight of the other, for the purpose of more readily raising or lowering the seeding apparatus.
2. No. 1092. — He claims in this patent the locating of the seat in the machine in such relation to a line drawn through the centre of the wheels or gi’ound supports that the occupant of the seat may, by moving himself or throwing his weight forward or backward on his seat, without the necessity of rising, walking, or standing over or near the seeding devices, force the seeding apparatus into or raise it from the grouud.
3. No. 1093. — His claim in this patent is the so connecting of the parts between the fixed points in the described machine that the portion of it carrying the seeding devices may be raised up out of the ground by the attendant riding on the machine and be carried by the tongue or horses’ necks and the supporting wheels.
4. No. 1094. — "Where he claims a lock-block or stop, in combination with the machine, which prevents the rear part, of the frame from descending so low as to strike the ground or inconvenience the occupant of the seat upon the rear portion of the frame.
5. No. 1095. — His claim in this patent is for a valve or slide in the seed-hopper and a valve in the seed-tube, so combining with a lever operating both that a half-motion of the lever by the operator riding on the machine, shall open and close the seed-passages at regular periods and pass only the right quantities.
Most of these ten reissued patents are for a single iugre*244client of the combinations described in the two original patents, and every one of the others is for a separate and distinct part of one or the other of those combinations; and the rule of decision set up by the complainant is that he may mass these several patents just as if the several ingredients were all described in one patent embracing a claim for a combination of each and every of the respective ingredients included in these ten several patents. Such a theory, in my judgment, is simply absurd, and it is certain that it finds no support in any decided case nor in any treatise upon the rules and practice in patent cases.
Argument to show that such is the theory of the present suit is scarcely necessary, as it is plainly shown in that part of the bill of complaint which alleges that the improvements and inventions contained in those several letters-patent constitute separate parts of an entire machine for seed-planting, and that they may be constructed for use and used in one machine in that department of agriculture; and the complainant charges that the respondents have constructed machines and used the same and vended the machines to others to be used in imitation of all those improvements and inventions except the improvement described in the reissued patent No. 1040, which it is admitted is not infringed by the respondents.
All the ingredients described in those ten reissued patents are old, and it was admitted at the argument that no one of the patents contains a claim for a combination of the several ingredients described in the said séveral reissued patents, and that the case rests on the basis that the several claims or some of them are valid though not amounting to a combination.
Valid patents may be granted for a new combination of old ingredients, provided it appears that the new combination produces a new and useful result, but the invention in such a case consists entirely in the new combination, and any other party may, if he can, make a substantially different combination of the same ingredients, or he may irse any number of the ingredients less than the whole, for the reason *245that the monopoly of the patent extends only to the combination and not to the ingredients separately considered.*
Patents may also be granted for a machine or for a separate and distinct device, but it cannot be held that such a patent is valid unless it be proved that the patentee is the original and first inventor of the thing patented.†
Noue of the separate devices patented in those reissued patents are new, and it being conceded that no one of the patents contains any such a combination as that embodied in either of the original patents, it is clear in my judgment that the decree of the Circuit Court should be affirmed, unless the theory that these several patents can.be massed aud be by judicial construction converted from patents for separate and distinct ingredients into one patent for a combination of all the ingredients described in the several patents mentioned in the bill of complaiut.-
Courts of justice cannot accomplish such an object by construction nor in any other mode, for several reasons: (1.) Because the province of construction is restricted to the ascertainment of the meauing of the language employed in the grant. (2.) Because the object can only be accomplished by the surrender of these patents and by a reissue of the original pateut, which is a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the commissioner. (3.) Because each of these patents is a separate and distinct grant. (4.) Because the court in construing such a grant, is restricted to the language employed by the granting power. (5.) Because several patents for several separate and distinct devices do not in law amount to a patent for a combination, and, therefore, cannot so be declared by a court-of justice.
The CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the judgment given in this case; the argument-having been had before he was appointed. The case was held long under advisement, and the opinions were not given to the Reporter until long after the judgment was rendered.

 16 Stat. at Large, 201.

 Gould v. Rees, 15 Wallace, 194.

 Gill v. Wells, 22 Id. 1.

 Vance v. Campbell, 1 Black, 428; Prouty v. Ruggles, 16 Peters, 341.

 Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wallace, 355.