Thus it is made plain that the purpose was to connect the air chamber directly to the cylinder, so as to have a direct action on the water in the cylinder, and also to have a direct discharge for the water, independent of the air chamber. This direct action of the air in the air chamber upon the water in the cylinder, and the direct discharge of the water through a discharge pipe, independent of the air chamber, were secured by connecting the air chamber to an opening on one side of the cylinder and the discharge pipe to an opening in the opposite side of the cylinder, and by keeping the pipe forming the air chamber wholly unconnected with the discharge pipe. By means of the combinations thus formed, Bean was enabled to furnish a better mode of connecting the pump stock and cylinder, and also a more efficient form of air chamber; but the means pointed out by him of accomplishing these ends, as set forth in his original application, consist of the form or mode of combining old elements, and this is the construction which must be placed upon the first and second claims of the original patent.

Turning now to the reissue, it appears that the first and second claims of the original patent are replaced by the first, second, third, and fourth claims of the reissue, wherein the invention is declared to be a supporting tubular air chamber, connected at the lower end with a cylinder or chamber. Practically, these claims cover any form wherein a supporting tubular air chamber is interposed between the pump stock and the pump cylinder, no matter how far separated it may be from the latter. The interpolation of the word "chamber" in the description and claims makes provision for entirely separating the ends of the air chamber and discharge pipe from the cylinder, and the reissue covers, therefore, pumps wherein the tubular air chamber and discharge pipe, instead of opening into the cylinder at opposite sides, open into a T, from which a single tube extends down to the cylinder. In pumps thus constructed would be found a tubular air chamber, opening into a chamber connected with the pump stock and aiding in supporting the structure, thus meeting the requirements of the first and third claims of the reissue, and by adding a discharge pipe the requirements of the second claim would be fulfilled. Pumps thus constructed would certainly show a wide departure from the combinations described in the first and second claims of the original patent. There would not be found therein the simple and substantial support for the cylinder formed by placing the same between the lower ends of the air chamber and the discharge pipe, and firmly bolting them together, as described in the original patent; the air chamber and discharge pipe would not open into the cylinder directly opposite each other. The cylinder would not have two holes therein, one for discharge and one for the air chamber, thus giving the air of the chamber direct action upon the water in the cylinder, as described in the original patent; nor would there be provided a direct discharge for the water, independent of the air chamber, because the pipe or tube extending from the T into which the air chamber and discharge pipe open would not afford a discharge pipe wholly independent of the air chamber, nor would the distance be

tween the lower end of the air chamber and the pump cylinder be reduced to zero, which, according to the testimony of complainants' expert witness, is one of the valuable features of the Bean invention. In fact, the difference existing between the original and reissued patents is shown by comparing the statements in the two patents of the nature of the invention claimed. In the original it is said:

"The nature of my invention consists in the construction and novel arrangement of a pump stock, connected with the cylinder by two tubes, one forming an air chamber and the other the discharge pipe, said tubes opening into the cylinder directly opposite each other, as will be hereinafter more fully set forth."

Whereas in the reissue it is said:

"The nature of my invention relates to force pumps, and it consists in a tubular air chamber attached to the pump stock or platform flange, and connecting to and opening into the cylinder or chamber, and forming also a support for the same. My invention consists further in a supporting tubular air chamber and discharge pipe, attached to the pump stock or flange plate, and connecting with and opening into a cylinder or chamber; also, in the combination of the parts, as will be hereinafter more fully set forth, and pointed out in the claims."

In the original application the invention claimed was the novel arrangement and combination of the parts, which consisted in having the tubes forming the air chamber and discharge pipe open directly into the cylinder at opposite points, and by firmly bolting the parts together, and then connecting the upper ends of the tubes to the pump stock, the double purpose of affording a steady support to the pump cylinder and of furnishing an efficient air chamber acting directly on the water in the cylinder was accomplished. In the reissue the main feature claimed is a supporting tubular air chamber. In the reissue the form of the combination of the parts is not of the essence of the claimed invention, but the purpose is to cover a supporting tubular air chamber, and thus to bring within the scope of the patent all pumps which include in their structure a tubular air chamber giving support to any of the parts, for, under the first and second claims of the reissue, it is not requisite that the air chamber should be the support of the pump cylinder. These considerations make it apparent that the purpose of the reissue was to patent the conception of a supporting tubular air chamber, and to thus bring within the patent forms of pumps which would not be within the terms of the combination covered by the original patent, and it must, therefore, be held that the reissue broadens the claims found in the original patent.

It may be urged, and strong support to the contention would be found in the evidence, that the reissue patent does not in fact cover more than Bean is justly entitled to lay claim to as an inventor. If the reissue had been promptly applied for on the ground that the original patent, through mistake or inadvertence, did not contain claims broad enough to protect the invention to its full extent, it might be held valid. The difficulty lies, not only in the length of time which was allowed to elapse before the reissue was applied for, but in the failure to show that any mistake existed in the original

application. It is now settled that when a reissue is sought for the purpose of enlarging or broadening the claims of an existing patent, the application must be made within a reasonable time. Miller v. Brass Co., 104 U. S. 350; Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354, 5 Sup. Ct. 174, and 6 Sup. Ct. 451. Not only so, but it must also be shown that there was a mistake, inadvertently committed, whereby the original patent failed to cover what it was then intended should be covered by the patent then applied for. Mahn v. Harwood, supra; Coon v. Wilson, 113 U. S. 268-277, 5 Sup. Ct. 537; Corbin Cabinet Lock Co. v. Eagle Lock Co., 150 U. S. 38, 14 Sup. Ct. 28; Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U. S. 156-170, 12 Sup. Ct. 825; Huber v. Manufactur ing Co., 148 U. S. 270, 13 Sup. Ct. 603; Dunham v. Manufacturing Co., 154 U. S. 103, 14 Sup. Ct. 986. Under the doctrine of these cases, the first, second, third, and fourth claims of the reissue must be held void, because they clearly broaden the first and second claims of the original patent, and it appears that there was not any mistake or omission in the original application, and because, further, the reissue was not applied for within a reasonable time, nearly three years intervening between the issuance of the original patent and the filing of the application for the reissue.

In a supplemental brief, filed by counsel for complainants since the oral agreement in the case was had, it is contended that the averments of the bill are sufficient to bring before the court the question of the infringement of the fifth claim of the reissue, which corresponds to the third claim in the original patent. Before entering upon the hearing of the case, complainants asked leave to file an amendment to the bill, covering the fifth claim. The court stated that leave would be granted to file the amendment, but the defendants, if they desired it, would be granted time to meet by evidence and argument any new questions thus presented. There upon complainants withdrew the application for leave to amend, and it was expressly stated and understood that the case would proceed upon the theory that the bill charged only an infringement of the four first-named claims of the reissue, and it would not be fair, either to the defendant or the court, to now insist that the fifth claim was in issue in the case.

The view reached upon the question of the validity of the four claims of the reissue, being adverse thereto, obviates all need for considering the other defenses pleaded, although the same have been very fully and carefully presented and discussed by the counsel in the case. The conclusion is that so far as the bill is based upon the patent reissued to Roscoe Bean, under date of March 25, 1879, the same is dismissed upon the merits. upon the merits. As already stated, the bill charged an infringement of the first and third claims of patent No. 339,445, issued to Samuel W. Martin, under date of April 6, 1886, and of the first claim of patent No. 259,394, issued to Wm. D. Hooker, under date of June 13, 1882. These patents are so closely related in their subject-matter that they can be considered together. The first claim of the Hooker patent covers a cap or discharge chamber, from the rim of which depends an outer supporting cylinder, connected with the bucket barrel, and containing an inner cylinder,

within which the plunger operates, both cylinders being attached to the cap or discharge chamber, with a space between them which forms the water way, the cap having also three sockets therein, the central one being used for the pump rod and the other two receiving the ends of the discharge pipes through which the water passes into a common air chamber. This arrangement of the parts gives compactness thereto, and its usefulness consists in so uniting the parts that the structure can be used in a well of a diameter sufficient to receive the rim of the discharge chamber, which was screwed upon the ouside of the outer cylinder. The Martin patent was an improvement in the same direction, the plan adopted being to reduce the size of the cap by screwing it to the inside of the main cylinder, so as to make the outer portion of the cap flush with the outer portion of the cylinder, and thus enabling the structure to be used in wells of small diameter. Had this been the only difference between the modes adopted by Hooker and Martin, the mere change in the form of uniting the cap and cylinder would not have shown a patentable invention. In fact, however, if in the Hooker structure the cap should be screwed into the end of the cylinder, it would prevent in whole, or nearly so, the flow of the water from the water way into the cap space, thus destroying the value of the combination. To obviate this difficulty, Martin did not connect the inner cylinder directly to the cap, as is the form in the Hooker patent, but he connected it to a tube of smaller diameter, interposed between the top of the inner cylinder and the cap, thus leaving a water space free and unobstructed for the upward passage of the water. In the brief of defendant, it is stated that the defense chiefly relied upon against the Martin patent is that of anticipation, this defense being based upon the evidence regarding a pump claimed to have been made by Daniel Johnson at Ashland, Ohio, and put into a well on the premises of Wilbur F. Felger in the year 1883. It is well settled that to sustain the defense of prior invention or use, the evidence must be clear, satisfactory, and such as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the material facts. Furthermore, when it appears that several parties have been independently engaged in experiments upon the same invention or device, the one who succeeds in first giving it a practical form, who brings it to public knowledge by obtaining a patent therefor, and makes it of general use and value by manufacturing or causing to be manufactured machines or articles embracing the invention, will be protected in the rights secured by his patent, even though it be shown that another may have mentally conceived the invention at an earlier day, or even if, in addition to the mental conception, he may have embodied it in a successful experimental form, and then abandoned it. The benefits and protection of the patent law are not for those who indulge in speculations and experiments only, but are intended to protect those who make available to the public novel and useful inventions by following up the original conception, carrying it through the experimental stage, and so far perfecting it as to furnish to the public a practical means of utilizing the novelty sought to be patented. Barbed Wire Patent, 143 U. S. 275, 292, 12 Sup. Ct. 443, 450; Coffin v. Ogden, 18

Wall. 120; Cantrell v. Wallick, 117 U. S. 689, 6 Sup. Ct. 970; Deering v. Harvester Works, 155 U. S. 286, 15 Sup. Ct. 118. It may, therefore, be admitted that the evidence shows that Johnson was experi menting in the same direction pursued by Martin, and that his efforts in this line antedated those of Martin; but it is no less clear that if the public knew no more of the invention than was communicated to it by the making and use of the Felger pumps, in 1883 and 1884, it would be in entire ignorance of the improvement. The experiment was made, and then abandoned; that is to say, it was not made the basis of an application for a patent, nor was the manufacture and sale of pumps embracing the invention entered upon. I do not, therefore, deem it necessary to consider in detail the evidence upon the question of the actual date of the making of the Felger pumps, as it must be held that they do not defeat the Martin patent, even if made before the date thereof. In regard to the Hooker patent, the point is made that the evidence fails to show title thereto in the complainants. It is admitted by counsel for complainants that, through oversight, the conveyance or assignment to Mast, Foos & Co. was not put in evidence, and leave is therefore given to supply the lacking link in the chain of title. Assuming that this will be done, I hold that the Hooker and Martin patents are valid, and that the first and third claims of the Martin patent and the first claim of the Hooker patent are infringed by the pumps put in evidence by the defendant. The result is that the bill is dismissed upon the merits, and at the cost of complainants, on the Bean patent, and is sustained on the Hooker and Martin patents. cree accordingly.

NEW HOME SEWING-MACH. CO. v. SINGER MANUF'G CO.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York. May 22, 1895.)

PATENTS-INFRINGEMENT OF COMBINATION CLAIM-SEWING MACHINE.

De

The Grout patent, No. 261,446, for an improvement in sewing-machine treadles, construed narrowly, and, being for a combination, held not infringed by a machine which omitted two of the elements expressly named in the claim.

This was a bill by the New Home Sewing-Machine Company against the Singer Manufacturing Company for infringement of a patent relating to sewing-machine treadles.

This action is based upon letters patent, No. 261,446, granted to W. L. Grout, July 18, 1882, for an improvement in sewing-machine treadles. The patent is now owned by the complainant. The specification is as follows:

"My invention has for its object a novel construction of the treadle to support the crank of the driving-wheel at each end. In this my invention I have mounted the adjustable bearing-screws in a brace which connects together the side pieces of the treadle, thus making a very firm support for the crank-shaft and bracing the table very firmly. The drawing represents in front elevation & sewing-machine table embodying my invention.

"In the drawing, A represents the side pieces of the treadle, and B the brace connecting the said side pieces, the screws, c, and rod. d, uniting the said side pieces and brace, the rod, d, also supporting the treadle, e, connected by link, f, with the crank of the crank-shaft, G, pointed or made conical at its ends and supported by the bearing-screws, h, i, having conical re