Court Opinion

ID: 91287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-28 16:03:15+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:47.956119
License: Public Domain

113 U.S. 268 (1885)
COON & Another
v.
WILSON.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued January 14, 15, 1885.
Decided January 26, 1885.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
*273 Mr. William F. Coggswell for appellants.
Mr. Edmund Wetmore and Mr. Hamilton Wallis for appellee.
*275 MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court. He recited the facts as above stated, and continued:
The defendants' collars have bands which are continuous from end to end of the collar, and are not in two parts, nor divided by any vertical or other seam, at the centre of their length or elsewhere. They have no short or sectional bands, which start from the centre of the collar, or from any point between the centre and the ends. The band is not shorter than the length of the collar. In the original patent, the invention is stated to be a collar having short or sectional bands, that is, the collar has not a continuous band, of one piece of cloth as long as the collar, and extending from end to end of the collar, but has its band made in two sections, and each of those sections starts or begins to run from the centre of the length of the collar, or from a point between the centre and the end, to and beyond the end. The bands have a graduated curve and increasing width, from their starting points, to and beyond the ends of the collar. But that is only one feature in the claim of the original patent. The other feature, the sectional bands, is made equally important in that claim, and a collar is not the collar of that claim unless it has both of those features. That claim is limited to a collar with those features, "substantially as described and shown."
The Circuit Court adopted the view, that a band, composed of two sectional bands, starting from the centre, and proceeding with a graduated curve and increasing width, would not make the whole band any less a continuous band with a graduated curve and increasing width towards each end; that the use of a continuous band of the latter description would not make the parts of it each side of the centre any the less sectional bands; that neither would be a continuous band of uniform width, and, as compared with that, there would be a saving of material by the use of either arrangement; and that it made no difference, in the Wilson invention, whether there was a vertical seam in the centre of the band or not, provided *276 the other features of the collar existed; that, if there existed, before Wilson's invention, a collar having those features, the fact that it had not such vertical seam would not distinguish it from the Wilson invention; that the real invention shown in the original specification was that claimed in the reissue; and that the reissue was, therefore, valid.
The defendants' collars have a band of continuous material from end to end of the collar, and the back button-hole in the body of the collar, but the band is not of uniform width throughout, being narrowed in the centre. It has, as a whole, the same style of graduated curve which the Wilson collar has. The defendants' collars were first made and sold after the original patent of Wilson was granted, and after the defendants had seen sectional band collars made under it. The first of the defendants' four collars was made and sold in February, 1878, and the other three in March, or April, or May, 1878. The reissue was applied for March 11, 1878, and Wilson testifies that his impression is, that he had previously heard of the defendants' collars. It is evident that the reissue was obtained because the defendants' collar, with a continuous band, had been put on the market, and for the purpose of obtaining claims which would certainly cover such a collar. The changes made in the specification and claims show this. The specification of the reissue, in stating what the invention consists of, omits the statement that it is a collar having sectional bands, and states that it is a collar having curved and graduated bands. It also omits the statement that the bands start from the centre, or from a point between the centre and the ends, and states that the curved and graduated bands extend along the lower edge of the collar, from the centre, or from a point between the centre and the ends. The statement of the invention, in the original patent, did not cover the defendants' collars, nor did the claim of that patent. The 2d claim of the reissue is substantially the same as the claim of the original patent. But the 1st and 4th claims of the reissue, corresponding with the changes made in the description, ignore the short or sectional bands, and refer only to a curved and graduated band. The 3d claim preserves the short bands, curved and graduated. As the defendants' *277 collars do not have the short or sectional bands, and so do not infringe the 2d and 3d claims of the reissue, the question arises as to the validity of the 1st and 4th claims, which it is alleged are infringed.
The final decree in this case was entered July 28, 1881. The decisions of this court in Miller v. Brass Co., 104 U.S. 350, and James v. Campbell, 104 U.S. 356, were made January 9, 1882. Under those decisions, and many others made by this court since, the 1st and 4th claims of the reissue cannot be sustained. Although this reissue was applied for a little over three months after the original patent was granted, the case is one where it is sought merely to enlarge the claim of the original patent, by repeating that claim and adding others; where no mistake or inadvertence is shown, so far as the short or sectional bands are concerned; where the patentee waited until the defendants produced their continuous band collar, and then applied for such enlarged claims as to embrace the defendants' collar, which was not covered by the claim of the original patent; and where it is apparent, from a comparison of the two patents, that the reissue was made to enlarge the scope of the original. As the rule is expressed in the recent case of Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U.S. 354, a patent "cannot be lawfully reissued for the mere purpose of enlarging the claim, unless there has been a clear mistake, inadvertently committed, in the wording of the claim, and the application for a reissue is made within a reasonably short period after the original patent was granted." But a clear mistake, inadvertently committed in the wording of the claim, is necessary, without reference to the length of time. In the present case, there was no mistake in the wording of the claim of the original patent. The description warranted no other claim. It did not warrant any claim covering bands not short or sectional. The description had to be changed in the reissue, to warrant the new claims in the reissue. The description in the reissue is not a more clear and satisfactory statement of what is described in the original patent, but is a description of a different thing, so ingeniously worded as to cover collars with continuous long bands and which have no short or sectional bands. The drawings *278 show no continuous band; and the statement in the original patent, that "the use of the short or sectional bands produces a saving of material, as compared to the old style of continuous band," shows that the patentee was drawing a sharp contrast between the only bands he contemplated  short or sectional bands  and a continuous band, of one piece of material, as long as the collar. The original patent industriously excluded from its scope a continuous band. In the reissue, to cover a continuous graduated band, the two bands B B are converted into a single band composed of the parts B B, and, while that is described as extending along the top or body of the collar, the "shorter graduated bands" are described as saving material, as compared with an old style continuous band, of uniform width.
While we are of opinion that the views of the Circuit Court, as before recited, were erroneous, we presume that if this case had been decided after January, 1882, the decree would not have been for the plaintiff.
The decree of the Circuit Court is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court, with a direction to dismiss the bill, with costs.