delivered the opinion of the court.
This is а bill in equity filed by the appellant.to restrain the alleged infringement of the complainant’s rights, as the" assignee of Frank'Davis, of reissued letters-patent No. 9901, fo.r an improvement in door-bolts. The original patent was No. 202,158,‘.dated April 9, 1878. The application for the reissue was filed April 1, 1881, the reissued letters-patent being, dated October 18, 1881. The alleged, infringement is of the third’ and fourth claims. As thе case turns wholly upon the validity of the reissued patent, it is important, for purposes of comparison, to set out the original and the reissue in parallel *653 columns. So much, of the original as is excluded from the reissue is'marked'in. brackets, and the additions made by- the reissue are in italics. They are as follows:
Original.
“ Specification forming part ■ of letters-patent No. 202,158, dated April 9, 1878. Application filed January 29, 1878.
To aU whom it may concern:
Be it known that I, FkaNx Davis, of North Adams, in the county of Berkshire and' state of Massachusetts, have invented certain new and useful improvements in door-bolts; [and I do hereby declare that] the following is a [full, clear, and exact] description [of my invention, which, will enable others skilled in the art to which it appertains to make and use the same, reference being had to the accompanying drawings, and to • letters of reference marked thereon, which form a part of this specification/]
[This invention is an' improvement] on letters-patent [No. 190,561,] granted to [the undersigned] May 8, 1877.
The [nature of said] invention consists [chiefly] in combining a cylindrical outer cas-
Seissüe. '
“ Specification forming part of reissued letters-patent No. 9901, dated October 18, 1881. Original No. 202,158, dated-April 9, 1878. Application, for reissue filed April 1, 1881. To all whom it may concern:
Be it known that I, FbaNjk' Davis, of North Adams, in the county of Berkshire and state of Massachusetts, have invented certain new and useful improvements in door-bolts, ■ of which the following is a description.
The improvements -me on the door-holt, for which letters-patent were granted to me May 8,. 1877.
The invention consists in combining a cylindrical outer case with an inner case, con *654 !ing with an inner [casing,] constructed, and recessed as hereinafter described, said [casings] combining to inсlose the operating mechanism, and to form a fulcrum and guide ' therefor; [and] in combining, with said [casings,] a bolt, pit-man, and [hub, so constructed and arranged as to operate in the same without pivot-pins or any additional devices, all as] hereinafter more fully [described] and claimed.
In the accompanying drawings Fig. 1 [represents the device as a whole] in perspeсtive. Fig. 2 [represents] a perspective viey of the inner [casing and contents.] Fig. 3 is , a [detail] view of the bolt [and its attachments.] Fig. 4 is a detail view of the inner [casing.] Fig. 5 is a detail view of the outer casing.
[A designates a cylindrical metalic outer casing or sleeve, which is provided with opposite openings a a near its rear end, and with a hole a1, for attachment by means of screw a2 to inner casing 33.
It is obvious that any known equivalent fastening may be structed and recessеd as hereinafter ’described, said oases combining to inclose the operating mechanism, and to form a fulcrum and guide therefor; in -combining with said cases a bolt, pitman, and cranh; and in a pitman or connecting rod, performing the functions of both pitman and spring, as the above are hereinafter more fully set forth and claimed.
In the accompanying drawings Fig. 1 shows the bolt in perspective. Fig. 2 is a perspective view of the inner case cmd portions of some of the working parts. Fig. 3 is a view, of the bolt, spring and cranh. Fig. 4 is a detail view of the inner case, and Fig. 5 is a detail view of the outer cáse.
To enable others to make and use my improvements in door- belts, I will describe them in detail.
A, Figs. 1 and 5, is a cylindrical metallic outer case, having the holes a a near its. r.ea/r end, and hole a1, through which a screw a2, Fig. 1, passes ■ into the inner case B, to hold the two cases together. The inner cylindrical case, B, Figs. 2 and 4, is made to fit closely into *655 substituted for said screw. Said cаsing A is preferably, a mere shell of steel, but both the material and thickness can be considerably varied without departing from my invention. ■
Inner casing B is of brass, cast-iron, or other cheap metal, and has such diameter as allows it to pass-readily into said outer casing or sleeve, and to be conveniently withdrawn therefrom. It is provided at the front end with a disk, which has a central оpening, l>, for the passage of the bolt, and ah annular flange, b1 which the outer ease, and has on its' front end a dish in ,’which is ' the central opening, b. On its ’ front end the flange b1 is formed, agamst which the ■ outer case comes. A slot, 'b2, Fig. 4, extends from the dish on the. front end the whole ■ length of the case. Another ‘ slot, b3, opposite, the slot'b2, extends bachwa/rd from the-'end’, dish, as. shown in Fig. 4. These slots lea/oe the parts b4 b4 of the inner case, as shown m Fig. 4. A groove, b6, extends across the case betioeen the parts b5 and b8 of the case. A longitudinal slot, b7, bisects this *656 prevents it from being forced back too far within said, exterior casing. The bottom of said inner casing E has a broad longitudinal slot, b2, extending from end to end, and communicating with a similar longitudinal slot, Is, in the top of said casing B, which extends about, two-thirds of the length оf said casing, beginning Just behind, said, front disk.' The interior of the forward part-of said inner casing is thus entirely removed, leaving vertical walls bA Ifi on each side of the space thus produced. This . space is separated by a transverse partition, b6, from a transverse groove, be, in the bottom of which is a longitudinal slot, b7. A transverse partition, bs, at the rear of said groove and slot, forms part of the rear end of casing B, and has in its top.screw-threadеd hole or socket b,9 for the reception of fastening screw a2.
C designates the door-bolt, having guide-pins c on its side, and near its fear end a recess¿ o', in which' works' the lower end of cranlo-arm D', formed in one piece with flat hub D. Said lower end of crank-arm • D' is connected by pitman E to the front part of said bolt.' Said hub D, when in position groove a/nd is cut through, the case.
0', Fig. 3, is the bolt, made with the lugs c c, only one of which is used. The projecting end is round, the part within the case is recta/ngular, one of the 'narrower sides fitting into the slot b2, and the other into b,3, Its rear end-is made narrower and thinner to ■ malte room for the crank, as shown in Fig. 3.
The crank D is made in the usual form, a/nd is arranged in a position to bring the hole through its larger ■ end in line with the groom b6 on the inner case and with the openings a a in the outer case.
The pitman and spring F, Fig. 3, is a straight hard-d/ra/um wire, and is connected to the bolt and crank by suitable pivotal connections. As shown in the drawings, its'ends a/re bent alright angles to its length and pass into holes in the bolt and crank, the spring being made long enough for the purpose. The lug c on the bolt is .so arranged relative'to the connections of the spring as to gire it the required degree of tension or “ set up,” it is called. 'The tension bends the spring over the lug c, as shown in Fig. 3. The key has its shank, square *657 for use, extends up through.. said slot V, so that its square or similarly shaped central hole is in a line with transverse groove ¥ of inner casing ' B; and opposite holes a a of' .outer casing A. The prismatic shank of the key is passed through said holes and groove, and operated as usual to shoot or drаw the bolt'.
I do not confine myself to the exact details of construction shown, as these- may be somewhat modified in various ways without departing from the spirit of my invention. ;
The working parts of my mechanism are more firmly secured and more perfectly protected than in my former patent, as hereinbefore recited. I also deem the .shape of my new hub and crank prefеrable for practical working.]
Having [thus] described my [invention], what I claim as new, and desire to protect by letters-patent, is —
• 1. The -combination, with a door-bolt and operating mechanism, of a cylindrical exterior [casing,] and a recessed inner .[casing,] said [casings] combining to inclose the operating mechanism, and to form a-ful- . to fit the hole in the crqnfo, with a.round ¡pa/rtnеar the handle to turn in the caseras shown ■ in Fig. 1.
Having described my im--proved iolt and its mode of operation, what I claim as new, and desire to secure by letters-patent, is— •
1. The combination,- with á door-bolt and operating mechanism, of a cylindrical exterior ease and a recessed inner case, said eases combining to inclose the operating mechanism, and to form a fulcrum and guide *658 crum and guide therefor, substantially as set forth.
2. The combination of [casing] A, having opposite holes a a, with inner [casing] B, having transverse groove ¥ hnd slot V, [flat hub] D, [having crank-arm D',] and the .bolt and pitman, substantially as set forth.
3. [The combination of cylindrical outer casing A with inner casing B, having annular front flange ¥,■ side walls ¥ ¥, transverse partitions ¥ and ¥, transverse groove ¥, and slot V, said casings being securely fastened together and adapted to receive the bolt and working mechanism, substantially as set forth.]
therefor, substantially as set forth.
' 2. The combination of case A, having opposite holes a a, with inner case B, having' transverse groove ¥ and slot ¥, crcmlc D, and the' bolt and pitman, substantially as set' forth.
3. The corribimation of _ the bolt O, prometed with the lug c, pitnnan E, operating as a pitman and spring, and ergnh T) to hold the bolt, substantially as set forth.
4. In a cylindrical door-bolt, the pitman E, mTanged'and adapted to operate as a pitman and- spring, substantially as set forth.”
It will be observed that the first and second claims of the reissued patent are substantially the same as the first and sec-_ оnd claims of the original patent, but as there is no allegation or proof of any infringement by the appellee of either of these they may both, be dismissed from further consideration. The third claim of the original patent ,is omitted, from the reissue, its place being taken by the third and fourth claims of the -latter-. The whole question is, whether the patentee and his assignee are entitled, under the circumstances of the case, to claim the pitman E, operating as a pitman and spring in. a door-bolt, as a distinct and separate invention, irrespective of its combination with the exterior and interior cases mentioned in. the first and second claims. This right is affirmed by the appellant and dénied by the appellee.
The invalidity of the reissued patent. is maintained by the appellee on two grounds : 1st, that the reissue embraces a' difr *659 ferent invention in the third and fourth claims from any described or contained in the- original specification; and, 2d, that, if it were otherwise, the patentee and assignee had, at the time of the application for a reissue, lost their rights to correct the defects in the original by their own laches. It was upop the latter of these grounds' that the Circuit Court proceeded in dismissing the bill. The undisputed facts on this pprt of the case are stated by the Circuit Court in its opinion, and are as follows:
“ The inventor, a carpenter by trade and not an educated. man, invented the device in November, 1877, and applied, ,in January, 1878, to Mr. Terry, a patent solicitor in New Haven, to procure • him a patent, specifying, as the invention 'to' be patented, the pitman, which, in connection with the crank, held the bolt and answered the double purpose of pitman and spring. ‘Terry, being in ill health, and, therefore, not then doing business, sent the case to his agent in 'Washington,, with Davis’s instructions. In due time the' papers were returned to,, Terry and were signed by Davis, who read them and supposed-that the application ‘ covered the spring, which he intended to ■ be patented.’ Terry did not read the application. The patent' was received by Davis in April, 1878. It does not ;appear' whether it was then examined or not. The plaintiff, did not' see the patent until after it was assigned to him, on May 28,, 1879. Whether he then read it pr not he does not know; but in the latter part of 1880, after the defendant had begun to-infringe, he did read it, and supposed, from the drawings, that the pitman-spring, as a separate invention, Avas secured by the' patent, until he was undeceived by Mr. Terry. In the spring of 1878 the plaintiff received from Davis a license to use the' pitman-spring upon another than the patented bolt. In September, 1880, Sargent & Co. commenced work upon the.patterns for the infringing bоlt, and made the first bolts Decern-', ber 1, 1880.” Ives v. Sargent, 21 Blatchford, 417.
The application for the reissue was nbt made 'until after .the lapse of nearly three years from the date of the original patent; that is, from April 9, 1878, until April 1, 1881. It may be assumed, as the effect of the evidence, that Davis, in *660 describing to Ms solicitor, - Tdrry, the -invention wMch he wished to have patented, specifically designated and described the pitmаn-spring as his.substantial invention, distinct from" , the combination of-wMch it formed a part in the first and second'claims of the patent. In-his testimony on this pomf, in answer to the question, “What did you'describe to him as the invention which you wished to have patented ? ” Davis states* “ I explained to Mr. Terry that I had got the spring, answering for a spring, and also for toning the bolt, a pitman-spring. ■ I didn’t know the term at that time; ” and alsо that he wished to have patented “ this pitman-spring, and tMs guard, lever, and that purchase it had in holding the bolt out or back; ■ also, ■ in moving the bolt out and back.” Terry, also, on the same . point, says, that Da-vis “ brought the invention or bolt to me ,and stated that he wanted to get it patented. He also stated what his invention was, as he considered it, that he wanted' patented,- and the thrng that he wanted patented particularly was the pitman or connecting-rod, which answered the . double purpose of pitman and spring, and in connection with the crank held the bolt when it was shoved out of the cáse and when it was drawn within the case.” Terry also states that, he sent “ a letter of instructions with the model, setting forth Mr. Davis’ wishes _ as he had expressed them to me.” The specification, as prepared by the solicitor in Washington, was retoned to Terry and-by him exhibited to Davis, who signed the application, as he states, after he had examined it and supposed it to be right, “covering the spring which I "intended to be patented.” Mr. Terry-states that he does not recollect whether he himself read over the specification and examined the claims at the tune Mr. Dаvis signed the papers, or not. On this application the patent was issued, and it does not appear to have been read or examined by any of the par-' ties in interest until after the appellee commenced making the • bolts now alleged to be an infringement. It was then discovered j!or the first time that the original patent did not cover the claim as now made, and the reissue was obtained to effect' that purpose.
- It is. admitted in argument- by the counsel for the appellant *661 that there was' negligence; it is contended, however, that it" was-not the negligence which in law is imputable to. the paten-’ .tee or- the.appellant, but the negligence of the solicitor em-' ployed by the patentee to obtain the patent. Counsel say, “it'wag the: Washington solicitor’s disobedience to instruction's which ■ caused the mistake, and Terry’s neglect to revise the.■application before sending.for Davis to sign it, which prevented its discovery.”
' The rule of diligence required in such cases, as the result of previous decisions of this court, is stated in
Wollensak
v. R
eiher,
In
Mahn
v.
Harwood,
*662
It is also settled that,, while no invariable rule can be laid ..down as to what is a reasonable time within which the paten-tee should seek, for the correction of a claim which he con- ' siders too narrow, a delay' of two. year's, by analogy to the law of public use before an application for a patent, should be construed equally favorable to the public, and that excuse for any longer delay than that should be made manifest by .the special сircumstances of the case.
Wollensak
v. Reiher,
In the present case no special circumstances in excuse for-' the delay are alleged. The excuse proffered is simply an attempt to shift the i-esponsibility of the mistake, as originally made, from the. patentee to his solicitor; but no excuse is •offered why .the patentee .did not discover the negligence and error оf his solicitor in due time. On the contrary, he assumed/ without examination, that the specification and. claims of his patent were just what he had desired and intended they should be, and rested quietly in ignorance of the error and of his rights for nearly three years, and then did not discover them .until after others had discovered that he had lost the right to repair his error by his neglect to assert it within a reаson,able time.
We are, therefore, of opinion that the Circuit Court was clearly in the right in deciding the reissue void as to the third and fourth claims, on the ground that the right to apply for it had been lost by the laches of the patentee and his assignee.
We are also of opinion, however,-that the reissue is void on the other ground, viz., that it contains new matter introduced into the specification, and that it is not for the same invention as that described in the original potent. In support of the reissued patent, on this ground, it is contended, on the part of the appellant, that the invention of the pitman-spring device is shown in ths drawings, which .^are the same both in the original and the reissued patents. Al. tjhat edn be said in respect to the drawings is, that .they show the pitman-spring devicе as a part of the bolt intended to be covered by the patent, and described as a combination of which that device forms a part. There is nothing whatever in the drawings to' *663 show that the patentee claimed to be the invento». of -that. part separate from the combination, as a distinct novelty, useful by itself, or in any other combination; neither is it so described in the specification. The operating mechanism of - the bolt, as distinct from the casings, which are described as forming a fulcrum and guide to it, is described as “ a bolt, pit-man, and hub so constructed and arranged • as to operate in the saíne (said casings) without pivot pins or any adcL'i-.' tiónal devices.” It is argued,' on this language, that the only additional device usual in such cases is a spring, and that, - therefore, the meaning of the specification is that no separate spring was required, and from that the inference is-to be made that- the pitman should operate both as a pitman and h spring; but this inference is entirely too obscure and remote.' It is nqt obvious that the additional device referred to'was a sprihg, and there is nothing in the language to suggest, what is clearly аnd fully expressed in the amended specification, • that “the pitman and spring E, Fig. 3, is a straight hard-' drawn wire, and is connected to the bolt and crank by suitable-, pivotal connections.” So that in the original description there is nothing to show of what material the pitman is made1 so as to operate as a spring, and there is no assertion in it of 'its.- . performing the double function of pitman аnd* spring: .
In this view, therefore, the case comes within the rule as-', stated in Coon v. Wilson, 113 U. S. 268, 277. Thére, as here,, the lapse of time and laches based upon it were considered immaterial, because the reissued patent was for a different. invention from that described in the original. “ 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.”
¥e áre, therefore, constrained to the conclusion that the addition of the third and fourth claims, with the corresponding' alterations in the specification, is such an expansion of the-' invention as originally described as to destroy its identity, and.. to that extent to avoid the reissued patent. •
For these reasons, the'decree of the Oircu-it Qourt is affirmed. '