The Corn-Planter Patent

181 Patent, Corn-planter Syllabus. her course do to the vessel keep required apply is so near that the steamer

after the wrongful approach will an error committed inevitable, nor the collision circumstances, if she such peril, sail-vessel under the sail-vessel fault, otherwise without impair right for collision, for the occasioned to recover injuries that those who put reason produced peril the plain that, the error in situation are with sail-vessel chargeable answer for the must consequences.* to that the sail-vessel must her exception keep Subject the case before course, court, if any change in course of the falls within the schooner, made excep- and it follows that decree of the Court must tion, Circuit remanded with direc- reversed, costs, cause for the tions enter decree favor the libellants whole schooner, her value of the freight, cargo.

Decree reversed. Corn-planter Patent. v. Guild. v. Selby.] Same [Brown granted patent, granted on a surrendered originally 1. Five reissues Brown, for improvements corn-planting to G. W. machines. bills, against Bergen against one and the Selby On & Sisson other infringement, al. for four of these reissues were sustained and et for want of novelty. declared void 1855, on a granted patent granted of five reissues surrender 2. Out for of patentable novelty, declared invalid want and one re- four were issue, 1095, was declared valid. No. an application described in filed An invention Patent a subsequent is not of itself a bar to therefor to Office another. application may bearing question have a on the an defence Such discovery, but will not of take such prior prior invention itself experiments. discovery category out of the unsuccessful invention 1038, reissues, good, held to be being Nos. 4. The several apparatus machines and described things contained within * Howard, Rumball, 21 v. Steamship Co.

Syllabus. Any question of not claimed therein. patents, although original regarded by settled these is to be as act obtaining in reissues fraud granting Patents them. of the Commissioner 1036, 1038, objection 1039 are not to the and obnoxious 6. Reissues Nos. combination, substantially for the same and therefore they are original parts of the machine. for distinct forth,” “substantially words as set purposes and for the 6. The use of claim, qualification the specification, throws it back to for in a otherwise, general. words construed, Reissue No. 1036 thus to The claim of held be valid and to 7. having wheels, separate frames —one two and the other be for two two runners. infringed held to have it. The defendants 8. Reissue 1037 declared void for want of novelty. 9. No. 1038 held to cover the combination separate frames, 10. Reissue No. of two two wheels other having runners, and the when are com- by hinged together joint. bined infringed hold to have claim, one, this although 11. The defendants machine, hinge is located at a Selby’s different of the ma- office, and ; purpose, operation, being chine the same. A effect more or change a little less backward forward held not to change identify. the substantial by new, his he regards A claim as to what patentee necessary 12. im- old, remaining disclaims rest as and such plication parts are to as old or common and regarded public. 13. 1 of Reissue if construed simply Claim claiming placing of would dropman probably be held void as claiming irrespective a mere result of the means which it accomplished; as claiming hut if construed accomplishment the result sub- stantially the means the specification described in free from that claim objection. Such be construed should in this limited manner if in order to save the possible patent. No. 14. 2 of Reissue 1039 embraces the consisting Claim combination of one frame, the runner-frame for having seat the dropman, and another frame, wheel-frame, having lifting lever fulcrumed to it. The claim, held to have infringed defendants this although the used, levers themselves, form were different in and point of attachment from lever. appellant’s 1091, 1092, 1093, Reissues Nos. 1094 declared for 15. void of suf- want patentable novelty. ficient invention constitute driver, The combination of a seat for a (in 1091) aon machine which seat on dropman’s had a it when driver’s seat had been used on a before, similar machine a dropman’s thereon, without seat does not patentable constitute a invention. explained, novelty and the Reissue combination for effecting dropping pointed double out. Both defendants held to infringed the claim of reissue. have Statement of the case.

Appeals District for Northern from the Court Circuit of Illinois.

G. W. Brown bills in equity filed two separate case, the one court below, Sisson, against Bergen case, charging and others in other Selby against them certain letters-pateut respectively infringement him, Brown, for corn-planting granted improvements machines, praying reissues previous being patents, an for general account profits, injunctions, answer, The the relief. defendant in case filed an first com- amended that the in answers, setting up, general, im- was not the and first inventor plainant origiual him, to same were but that the provements pre- patented in known named and used various other viously persons answers, and that the the reissued patents.of complain- obtained; were ant denied that they fraudulently they complainant’s patents. infringed pleadings case were Much testimony other same. substantially taken, been were before the causes heard having together were Court, and the bills severally Circuit complainant’s were dismissed. The from decrees appeals dismissing first one defendants in the them. Bergen, original his was revived in the name of died, the cause case, having Guild, Sisson, the other executor, who, defendant, with case. now appellees eases as which the invention, to controversy “ arose, one which is called a check-row corn-planter;” Indian intended to facilitate an invention planting best corn way. (maize) corn, observed, sort of as most have

This persons usually rows; rows from feet inches to four three ten planted be It to in order that feet apart. requires planted all it is between and around in which the hillocks spaces after corn be to may planted ploughed, begins grow; “ that the corn cultivated.” use technical term) (to im- if weeds allowed about the corn For grow and diminish its its productiveness. strength pair “ time when the cheek-row Prior corn-planter” Statement of general subject. the ease. —The devised, hand, while, course, all was done planting farmers used to rows, secure the properly, planting, at distances from each grain other, way. right made a series marks across They transverse scratches field, as shown below. lines a b in the black design

Tig. 1. came to Then, when plant, they trans- they ploughed the dotted lines e and d, as shown at the inter- versely, by d, sections e e of the furrow c with the scratched line a b, the corn. The corn therefore dropped grew regular and rows, be “cultivated” means could of a by drawn plough a horse who went by between rows both directions.

But this of numbers operation of lines and drawing great in two directions across fields, and of ploughing large drop- the corn hand at the ping intersections, was a by slow and laborious and one one, care in order requiring to be great done. accurately of the object under improvement consideration in

these cases was to do this work—that is to to say, plant in the com best in hills at exact and way proper distances with much of the former labor. apart dispensing — The first and in theoauses principal question was, whether was the Brown, complainant, and first original inventor Oct. 1874.] and reissues. patent of the case. —Brown’s

Statement him, to claimed by patented improvements named was therein other persons whether he anticipated by the defendants. in the answers of As the first obtained bill, set forth in patent and im- for one of his invention portion alleged complainant to him on the 2d of was day August, granted provement, of the 2d 1853. This antedated day February, patent 1858, on the 16th of was surrendered day February, a. thereof, was issued lieu a corrected new upon patent reissued was also This surrendered on patent specification. and in lieu of thereof five 1860, the 11th day September, were issued five several corrected new patents upon specifi- new were numbered re- cations, patents respectively 1036, 1037, 1039, 1040, each one 1038, issues being invention, part distinct separate original alleged have been made complainant. 1855, of was On the 8th May, patent granted his for certain on improvemehts corn-planter, complaiuant was, on the November, 10th 1857, day patent surrendered, and a new was issued lieu thereof patent last also on a corrected This sur- specification. on 1860, rendered the 11th and five new December, day were in lieu issued thereof on five amended speci- patents each distinct and fications, separate being intended to be secured improvements The last-mentioned were num- patents respectively 1091, 1092, bered reissues Copies all the reissued series were both annexed to patents the bill. Upon cause, taking proofs copies the two and of the first reissues original patents, thereof, well the reissued which the bill patents was founded, in evidence, with full and detailed draw- put together and models of the ings complainant’s improved original machines. defendants,

The their answer and the several amend- referred to thereof, machines, ments many patents, ap- for which, as patents embodied all plications alleged, improvements complainant’s machine, ante- original machines.

Statement of the case.—Brown’s referred the same. These will be more particularly dated been have after the features of the complainant’s described. which granted for original 1853, and

to the 2d on the complainant August, day Septem- was dated 27th application and consisted ber, 1852, is shown in in Figure perspective parts: following Fig. 2. A framework on runners —the latter two supported used for or furrow the earth to

being cutting gash seed; each runner a cleft at the rear end receive having to the the seed to furnished drop ground, for allowing horizontal valves above, a hopper containing oscillating intervals into the seed at proper gash dropping a tube in the heel of runner. furrow through first, framework, Another supported following runners and to follow the wheels, rollers, two press or furrow. the seed in the earth down upon gash W A to the relation of the runners covering-wheel side view of Brown’s ma- is a at shown Figure chine. Fig. 8. frames, connection between free or jointed

A3. rise fall of each other independently them allowing Corn-planter Oct Patent. original machines.

Statement case.—Brown’s connec- over surface. This jointed in going inequalities J, was formed a bolt arm tion passing Figure by through 3, at the I. point the wheels

4. A on the axle of levers system resting and so frame, 3, under the rear shown at L, applied Figure to raise the to the forward frame as to enable the driver for other runners out about any turning ground with a further the depth purpose, arrangement regulating of the furrow or made the runner. by gash ma- machine was a complainant's hand-dropping mounted and it was so that a chine, man could arranged or fur- ride and observe the lines sidewise, upon had made rows which been across the field. Whenever runners these lines seed was This passed dropped. seed- done means of a betweeu the connecting-rod with a each, in the two one end attached to valves hoppers, move it and forward the hand lever to backward frame, could, crosswise on the so that dropper sitting at movement, the seed from both drop hoppers such lines marked on at the intersection of cross same time field. in his The machine is shown with the placed dropman and the seen 4, extending check-rows Figure position

Fig. was described with substan- The machine across the field. attached these drawings tially parts specifications 1853, to the well as the several reissues original patent 1037, 1038, improved of the case.—Brown’s machine. Statement in had two ad- machine, 1855, The improved patented ditional or features, improvements: each in seed-

1. A called valve, flipper-valve, vibrating of a slender which valve is tube, composed long dropping connected middle, metal to a of attached pivot slip so slide-valve two openings, attachment to a having small side of the tube the one bot- is that when moved top one movement the seed moves to the other side. By tom and is detained side, into one the slide-valve drops through when it is movement, next till the dropped near the bottom is admitted seed simultaneously through on the ground, other side. The the slide-valve into the positions and lever shown slide-valve, Figures flipper-valve, is that the seed of this The effect 5 and arrangement furrow when the bottom of is near so dropped, in line with the deposited it is immediately check-row. such that it apparatus And peculiarity requires the levers above to movement for a drop single hill. was a high,

2. Another seat for improvement long frame, located above on the rear driver, wheels length- machine, wise of backward or by moving for- his will raise or seat, ward on weight depress run- ners. claims allowed the Patent Office

The only upon in the of 1853 were: application origifial wheels “The horizontal oscillating 1st. distributors valves before referred bottoms of to), (namely, holes of various sizes, slots and combination having hoppers, improved Statement of the case.—Brown’s machine. with the for the different discharge caps pins stationary kinds in the seeds, as set forth quantities specification.” “ rollers, mounted as 2d. The of the covering arrangement seed, described, covering and performing purpose round, and the cutters in also adjusting elevating turning different as set forth.” depths, disallowed. for,

Other were but were claims applied 11th, new issued reissues, The five September patents, 2d, 1853, and in lieu of the August original a number of its first supposed reissue and each con- distinct inventions comprised of these distinct more claims. None tained one or separate in the inventions were claimed distinct features original in an intermediate as such claimed they nor patents, in shown but distinctly reissue granted described in and were specification original drawings, of patent. original 8th, 1855, of allowed in the May claim only patent was as follows: added to improvements and their

“In combination with the semi-rotating hoppers A their d, valves/, the runners with their and adjustment plates cams, the driver’s means of the levers and and weight seeds each vibration carrying dropping purpose de- D, the lever and to planting, regulate depth scribed.” 1860, this was 11th, the reissue of December

By one or more each ones, into five new subdivided having inventions which were distinct claims for separate supposed patent, original comprised drawings thereof. descriptive part that of the defendants the first Upon question, novelty, “ drill,” well-known to Cooke’s

referred argument Farmer’s machines described Encyclopaedia, other like Moftatt; an old machine Joab principal them as the in- machines relied upon by anticipating prior were the follow- found Brown’s vention ing: Todd. Anticipation.—Thomas,

Statement the case. — Thomas, patented cottonseed-planter from his different contended complainant, in the opinion This machine is described corn-planter. at court,* illustrated Figure Fig. 7. 13th, December patented seed-planter, Todd’s

2. Henry in the illustrated also described opinion,† Fig. 8. contended a this was complainant 8. Figure machine.

different * Infra, pp. 207, 208. pp. Infra, 207. † Mumma, Remy Anticipation.—Earle, Kelly. Statement & case.— Earle’s de This, 3. 1848. planting plough, patented was scribed an automatic opinion,* corn-planter, his and, as was unlike argued by complainant, wholly planter.

4. Mumma’s seed This, drill. also described opini was, the defend however, not relied on,† strongly upon ants. machine. This described & Remy Kelly’s ud a a illustrated in 9. For this court,‡ Figure

.by

Rig. 9. June, 1850, had been applica- applied An and withdrawn. experimental then tion rejected the machine was also proved. use of under this this condition of question Upon things, as to what a discussed, fifth machine was much position, contained in re- a machine defence, prior description if it was anot defence and, jected application occupied, good itself, how far be considered in connection might use an experimental prior establishing anticipation patented invention. Three machines, Abbott, James which were prior These, the defendants. con- complainant

produced by tended, were indeed unsuccessful if experiments, in date to his The two invention. these prior principal * Infra, Infra, p. p. Infra, pp. 209-211. 208. 208. † ‡ 192 Kirkman, Brown.

Statement of the Joab case. — illustrated court,* machines are described and 10 11. Figures

Fig. 10. 11.

Fio. was machine. This much Kirkman’s John unpatented 7. defendants; contended on complainant relied from his it was different corn-planter, materially frame, in which runners were both but a single having runner and frames with instead of two wheels, independent that on evidence It was also insisted wheels like his. ' to his. It described opinion was date subsequent the next 12, and illustrated at court,† page. Figure said have been used Joab Brown’s corn-planter, 8. another for 1858, corn-planter ap- 1850 also adduced. December, 1852, a plied machines of 1850 and that the contended The complainant and abandoned experiments, were unsuccessful Brown said applied for which the Joab the machine unlike his, compTain- wholly * Infra, pp. Infra, pp. † Corn-planter 193 Patent. Brown, Finn, Case. Statement Anticipation.—Joab case. — Fig. 12. Brown Joab is ana last machine

ant’s, machine. This at 13. Figure and illustrated in the opinion,* lyzed Fig. 13. set and relied

Besides the defendants these, up upon Case as machine of Charles Finn and Jarvis containing claimed device, appellant double-dropping Reissue No. 1095. devices in these two machines double-dropping the court,† and illustrated in the

described opinion shown further 23 Figures page was much dis- there question Upon infringement * pp. Infra, pp. Infra, 214-216. † 13 VOL. XXIII. Selby. Infringement.—Bergen,

Statement of the case.— court, in declar- cussion. The conclusion arrived at by void for want reissued ing complaiuant’s patents 1092, 1091, Nos. and also the reissued novelty, patents 1093, void, novelty, not patentable containing obviates of here to the infringement necessity referring of the several claims of those patents.

As was con- claims, to the it of the other infringement the- tended that the and of machine of the defendant Selby, defendant the claim of Eeissue No. infringed Bergen, That claim was in these words: Claim nature thus described the Having fully

“ a seed- my what I is object invention, claim under machine, framework, constructed planting principally runners, front two part on not less than supported or shoes, with rear sup- and the upward-inclining edges, on not less ported arranged than two the latter wheels, being to follow the set former, for the as and purpose substantially forth.”

The shown, side defendant Bergen’s arrangement view, in his was thus described Figure patent:

Fig. 14. “ consists of a frame B, body The machine mountedon A, wheels, frame runners, a rear mountedon frames two a flexible united it can be ren being joint, arranged under certain circumstances.” dered rigid contended that as the machine had complainant frames, one frame on a distinct pair rollers, and resting frame distinct of runners the other resting pair within this claim. cutters, besides that this claim was an- defendants, insisting Statement of Selby. Infringement.—Bergen, case.— Kirkman’s also contended that ticipated by did as the inasmuch pivot Bergen infringe, was different and located. hinge differently The machine made is shown defendant Selby and consisted of two frames Figure distinct pivoted

I'm. 15. One of these frames was on two run- supported together. ners the other two wheels.

The claim of the under was as 1038, Reissue complainant, follows:

“ Claim thus described the nature and ob- fully Having under is, I claim in com- my invention, what ject with a constructed principally bination seed-planting than runners and not less than framework, with not less two between the wheels, tongue a hinge-joint point machine, so of the framework part rear on the other lowered, raised, supported adjusted, as described.” substantially part, and rear frame in the front mode of attaching on the machine is shown

defendant Figure Bergen’s described and was thus patent: next Bergen’s page, “ in two of two I my parts, consisting construct seed-planter suitable equal strength, coupled together. frames width a slotted at . These frames are coupled together by joint . . Selby. Infringement.—Bergen, Statement of the case.— have a varying frame to frame, either permit each side seed- the position movement without vertical changing depth planting.” tubes varying Fig. 16. at shown

A peculiar binge, Figure employed by contended that Brown was to be appellees Bergen, his limited to and that peculiar hinge, Bergen’s a different had hinge.

Fig. 17. other The shown arrangement Selby, defendant, is had in 18. He also two frames separate Figure pivoted to- but was effected extend- pivoting gether, hinging rear frame forward and ing front end pivoting the runner to the of the rear projection frame. It was con- tended the defendants that on this account, in the Selby machine, two frames, were combined although hinged, a therefore, different together substantially manner, and, The Infringement.

Statement of the ease.— insisted that it was that no The complainant infringement. was frames together the two although place uniting were peculiar, machines, different the two and hinges Pig. 18. frames of these caused the com- together pivoting

yet to be alike. action exactly bined these claim Reissue words: described fully

“Claim thus the nature and Having under I claim invention, what is in object my machine, wherein mechanism seed-planting seed-dropping attendant, hand or by an contradistinction operated from ‘mechanical of said mounting attendant dropping;’ that machine, such a see position upon readily marks made ground, the previously upon operate thereto, substantially as herein mechanism to conform dropping forth.” set this was not that for the mere pat- complainant urged a seat on the so the several arranging

tingof in a could be to see position dropman located parts and work the marks on the seed-valves, ground, machines ar- the same Selby both Bergen several machines had parts respective rangement there in a made; that a man could located been sitting do his work. position seat is shown in Brown’s arrangement Figure the next and was between the seed-boxes, page, that he could sit sidewise astride and observe the marks. was, seat in like manner, located between the Bergen dropman’s

Statement of the seat. case. —The sit could so that the boxes, seed-hopper dropman astride across the field. of-the seat and sidewise look

Fig. 19. seat is shown in 15,* Figure arrangement Selby’s and was in the same Brown’s. position had It was contended that as no one by complainant ever several so that a arranged corn-planter parts man sit the machine in a watch the could upon position same the valves, marks on and at the time work gróund several manner these organizing parts, by valves, invention, sit there work the involved could was not' like the mere seat a driver’s putting been where drivers’ seats had accus- positions be tomed to mere placed, purpose driving machine. stated, court,

The opinion already dispenses of reference to the necessity question infringement Reissue reissues, the second No. 1095. group except was in these The claim reissue words: fully invention, thus described Having my “Claim is, I under this with lever, what claim combining both a valve or slide seed- operated, seed-tube, a valve in the as that a half-motion hopper, on the machine which the lever operator, riding shall both and close the seed at passages operated, open only, measured substan- quantities periods, pass regular as described.” tially

* p. Supra, Corn-planter Patent. mechanism. Statement of the Double-dropping case.— was contended on this It behalf of that complainant claim was a for as shown consist- combination, Fig.

Fig. 20. of the seed- valve in the bottom l, of a lever ing sliding valve in b, a and and a vibrating boxes having openings, of the seed- the seed-tube length extending throughout in alternate when vibrated directions tube, valve, with the formed conjunction opposite alternate passages in one so when vibrated direction seed-tube, sides of the seed-tube, side of the formed, with the valve seed-tube b, in with the connection j?, opening which, passage descend the seed-tube seed to into caused the hopper-valve, When of the seed-tube. the bottom be retained at direction, the valve in the lever was vibrated opposite JE' 21 and into the seed-tube moved position (Figures 22), on one side a passage ground open in the seed-tube, and at the seed same deposited previously the seed passage through time opened seed-hopper slide-valve, into seed-tube, the opposite side of the valve from that shown the first vibrating position. their several elements, combining mode namely, lever, and the valve in valve seed-hopper, sed-tube, dropper. Statement of the and Brown’s case.—Case So similar to that of complainant. substantially bottom of the at the slide-valve, vibration of the rela caused vibrate proper the tube-valve to seed-hopper, tion thereto.

Two Brown : devices were set up anticipating in its two device, 1st. That of Case, posi- Jarvis whose tions, shown in 28 and 24. Figures This machine was like Brown’s, in that one muscular effect did the work of opening closing hopper-valve valve, and seed-tube but the seed-tube valve was not double- a returned it to its acting, and the spring place, operator had to overcome the force of this spring.

2d. Finn’s which is shown in Figures In this machine the last-mentioned seed-tube valve each were and two only single-acting, hopper-valve motions were arm of the required operator for consequence each of seed. It was contended that deposit Brown’s ma- Finn’s and Case’s, chine differed from a lever containing with a in combination and double-passage hopper-valve valve vibrating extending through seed-tube, which

Argument appellant. in the sense of valve double-acting, vibrating forming, seed-tube, with walls of the alternate passages opposite with each half-motion on each side valve, vibrating arm, much labor. operator’s thereby saving and the dropper Selby dropper agreed Bergen each a Brown’s, having having slide-hopper-valve valve seed-tube located vibrating double-acting passages, seed-tube, within and extending length for the valve formed alternate seed passages grain vibrating at each half-motion of the arm. operator’s to the ground, with these had lever combination The Selby dropper a handle was and in the substituted dropper parts, Bergen combination. lever the court dismissed bill of below stated, As already taken such complainant, present appeals action.

Mr. contended that the appellant, GeorgeHarding, for frames; was two Brown separate Corn-planter composed and the wheels, on not less than other supported reason of this funda- not less than two runners. That by it followed— mental organization, and cover in the seed. the wheels should follow 1st. That could be made between connection 2d. That hinge to the unevenness of so as to conformity two frames permit the ground. seat on the ma- That could carried

3d. dropman’s chine. or be fulcrumed on rear wheel-

4th. That lever could frame, front or attached to the runner whereby frame and corners, be elevated to turn the front runner-frame could &c. or the several features, several rather These arrangements were made the them, of mechanism subjects producing 1036, 1038, reissues, several distinct Nos. others, were made among points, ap- following :

pellant in several distinct reissues in- The reissuing patents, within is a matter the discretion reissue, of one only stead appellant. Argument was decided This of Patents. point Commissioner in Bennet v. Fowler.* this court claimed in the reissues of or devices The several features claimed in the not original original patents, although was thus laid therein, and rule were described patent, v. court: down Seymour Osborne† “ commissioner to conferred upon Power is unquestionably if be amended the inoperative allow the to specification form; invalid, or that event to issue proper under that allow the doubtless, authority, patentee and he may, in the to redeseribe his and to include invention, description before, well described claims of the what was only patent, indicated substantially but whatever else suggested the invention to belonged specification drawings properly made and actually perfected.” it is for the decision necessary appellant Under this only each of the several matter of claim show that to subject or exhibited in the reissues is set descrip- out drawings and it is for the court to com- tion original patent, ascertain that fact. and reissued to patents original pare in the form contained in re of claims As to the legality 1092, and as the construction of issues the reissues the counsel referred claims generally, Osborne,† v. Roberts v. Dickey,‡ Seymour v. Seymour McCorm Talcott. n v. McCormick ick,§ iu a invention to what is to defeat a

As required prior to Whitely and as to v. use, Swayne,¶ prior public Aga patent, v. Washburn Company Jordan,** Seymour Osborne,†† wam v. v. Gould.‡‡

As to nature of certainty required establishing and in its invention, date, an to prior Woodv. alleged fixing Mill Parham v. Company,§§ Cleveland Buttonhole Rolling Com pany, nn Hayden v. Manufacturing Company.¶¶ Suffolk * 445; Wallace, Pennsylvania and see 8 Salt v. Manufacturing Gug- Co. Fisher, enheim, 423; Taggert, Howard, 3 also Battin v. 17 80. Wallace, Fisher, Howard, 11 4 516. 532. 19 † 96. 20 ‡ lb. 402. n § ** Wallace, 685. Ib. 11 7 583. Id. 552. Story, 3 122 †† ¶ ‡‡ §§ 4Fisher, 559. Ib. 468. Ib. 98. nn ¶¶ 203 of the of Brown’s invention. Anticipation.—Date court. — to modifications devices to convert them into

As prior to Woodv. Mill Cleveland improvement, patented Rolling Company*

As to what constitutes and the doctrine infringement as to v. equivalents thereto, Seymour applicable Osborne.† Messrs. S. Fisher, Gookins, 8. S. B. J. H. Roberts, contra, argued— were because void, reissued appellant’s patents

.That to did not improvements they professing seed-planters set consisted, forth in what the nor clearly improvement was new what from what was old. distinguish were That the claims of the reissues several not sepa- rate and distinct of the machine or invention. parts

That the were the same reissued not for invention patents in the which was claimed patent. original & filed in the That Patent application Remy Kelly, was a full of Brown’s reissued Office, anticipation patents and defeated them. 1039, 1038 as the other machines aud adduced to That patents prior him material Brown, fully together, anticipated upon every in his reissued contained patents. thing 1039, the first claims the reissued That No. patent 1855, several reissues of the of the especially and therefore result, patentable.‡ Justice BRADLEY delivered court. opinion Mr. in these A decision causes renders questions proper ascertain, first as it near necessary, place, actual invention inven- be, the date Brown’s alleged His tions, such and whatever are. original applica- tion for sworn 27th September, own But his from does testimony, 1852. appears not seem to rather corroborated be discredited, on a others, that he was ma- experiments making * Fisher, Wallace, 11 † 202; Miller, Co., Sangster 563; v. Fisher, Falls v. Carr Ib. v. Sickles ‡ Rice, 1 Id. 325.

204 of Brown’s invention. Anticipation.—Date of the court.— chine which formed the nucleus of his invention. completed He further he made that January says February, a he machine which describes as follows:

“ It wheels, had two runners and two and nose- two cross-bars seat, The wheels pieces, and a braces, dropper’s tongue. were the seed-boxes were arms hung arms. There through in, back seed-boxes, from the which the run wheels running seed-boxeswith I run- a bolt. had coupled through loop down each side of the wheel that on axles on ning the went to the

wheels, and worked a on of short levers fastened couple this forward under the loop running forepart back far on behind. I running put enough cross-piece am a hand at it. The seed-slide poor through describing passed other, from one to the and the lever running hoppers, oper- hand, ated it with the with a located the machine person crosswise,so he that could see the marks on the plain ground.”

Further evidence was him the mar descriptive given chine, and its substantial with the identity showing as it when the stood was granted. But it

This, model. had all the however, only characteristics of the that machine, except perfected main valves were seed it, the circular not contained being from the bottom of the movement dropped hopper of a He further testified that in he sent slide. straight his brother to and that it was that model by Washington, as model filed Office, the same Patent nearly very an witness, which was shown to exhibit copj’ further states in the same He he year the cause. model, a machine of after one-half the made, plan with, to work and that size, but he usual large enough acres corn with it in three or four JVhiy, planted well. In it worked same September He year, says he invited several come and harvest, persons after see it their names. Several these witnesses giving operate, his called and corroborated fully testimonj^. Early commenced ten machines, he but com- constructing one, of them With spring. pleted mentioned, machine before over planted half-sized twenty The Patent. of Opinion Anticipation.—Date the Brown’s invention. court.— acres of sixteen corn, for himself and namely, eight Allen Brown. At this he introduced into time, he says, these the valves, machines circular or plates, dropping of the slides, thus as it stood machine place completing when he for his made model now be- applied was us, which same fore season. during following 1858, time, before had he spring, corn-planting completed all machines his and sold dozen containing improvements, them to various Some of he them, persons. says, planted machines, as much as three hundred acres of corn. These he contain the seat and which says, high flipper-valve, dated 8th, subject May have endeavored we think unsuccess- appellees (but to discredit the statements and of Brown, fully) testimony to the existence of rollers the seed especially covering in the model and small-sized machine made early He is on corroborated his point by others; V. R. Brown, nephew, nothing nega- is adduced to the tive testimony contrary. clear his

We think it that the seat and (except was invented in the flipper-valve) substantially beginning and that he con- had April May year and used a small structed working corn-planter, containing material of his machine as it when was parts all patented, valve in the the circular which added as except hopper, on the slide in the of 1852. spring an improvement straight will next to what machines proceed inquire We belonging had same class been invented to this prior to general at that in order show state of art time. period, drill, cannot be contended that Cooke’s It seriously Farmer’s kind, machines of the described Ency- other features of bear resemblance to any specific clopedia, are made The furrows coulters corn-planter. Brown’s harrows beams, covered follow- fixed grain drills. The latter are hollow tubes sup- ing seed with the aby revolving cylinder grain having plied in its become cavities, surface, filled cups, little in the bottom of the revolve hopper. Corn-planter, [Sap. Moffatt, Anticipation, Hornsby, Thomas. court. — It to consume time in reference hardly necessary invention Joab or about Moftatt, alleged year models of made from the which, recollection supposed witnesses, have to the him- been court. Moftatt presented stand, self was and swears has no placed ever recollection invented such a machine. And having he did it is little if inveut such a singular, perfect models as the represent, approaching closely every par- to Brown’s ticular it should have corn-planter, gone and total disuse The into oblivion. general aspect to this evidence and supposed some re- relating individual features markable exhibits, are sufficient to us of out entirely case. justify throwing.it An obtained patent, English by Hornsby introduced; but the mechanism described therein has very resemblance to It consists corn-planter. of hol- slight wheel, low and doors in angular compartments the cir- seed cumference to receive and manure from a aud hopper, them on the the revolution of the deposit ground by wheel. wheel is This situated rear of a coulter running and does not touch the itself, but is ground, ground sup- frame of the machine, which in ported turn is sup- wheels on the ported by large driving outside of the frame. The and coulter wheel are located in deposit the inside of The inventor, frame. observes however, that more than one coulter aud wheel be used. deposit No method is described seed it into covering pressing The.side view of coulter exhibited in the draw- ground. bears some resemblance to the runner in Brown’s ma- ing chine; but have no we other it, of or of description manner its operation.

Thomas’s cottonseed-planter, patented 1841, is next It consists of a adduced.* long bed-piece plank, supported wheels, side, one on each a sort of keel having underneath, the middle, for running along making crease or furrow ground, machine in a keeping

* it, See a drawing supra, p. Fig. 7. The Thomas, Anticipation, Todd. court. — direct course. In the middle of the over the axle bed-piece, an to allow a wheels, is seed-roller affixed aperture to axle to alternate revolve, seed-holes. ridges having is a which holds the Over this seed communi- hopper, whose cates it to the revolution the seed is seed-roller, by into the A loose rear flap furrow. dropped hinged end of the on the along bed-piece, drags ground, keel in the seed with The this machine bears earth. covering some resemblance to the runner This corn-planter. no It exhibits a further observation. sem- patent requires blance of one or two elements Brown’s machine. only time machine in Todd’s, next order Henry Oxford, 15th, New December Hampshire, patented 1843.* “ witness, main is thus described It Hale: por surface-board, machine consisted of tion of the plank wide, feet one foot aud to a three or four long, tapered point was fastened said' The seed-box in front. plank. a belt, was distributed upon seed cups upon principle elevator; the was motion communicated band of a flour the a at rear of the said roller also roller serv from the the earth over corn. A cutter planted was press ing said bottom of for a drill fastened to the for plank, opening of seed, and a fast couple the dropping wings converging and said rear bottom of plank ened to the the covering before mentioned cutter had an incline seed. The upward at the thin and and front was front, in out sharp, spreading was end.” machine much its rear like a at managed bandies. The roller in two the rear was having plough, arms, with the front of machine connected in which were situated of its side, one each bearings were, forward ends of axle, bolts, and the by pivots the roller rise and so that could fall attached to supports, of the surface-board ma independently platform Brown’s in a resembled cutter chine. It having in furrow, a seed dropping runner) making (or a cutter, at the rear of a cleft roller through having * it, 190, Fig. drawing supra, p. See Todd, Earle, Mumraa. Anticipation, Opinion of the court. — a free con- seed, and having earth upou to press and the It differs from said roller machine. between nection roller; and one cutter one but runner) (or init having behind the runner to scrapers winglike pair having earth; an automatic feeding apparatus seed cover cross-rows; seed in check or and of dropping incapable but the and to lift levers, nothing plough-handles no having of the ground. out cutters examined on the witness of this subject the only Hale them, Todd make six of helped He says machine. and worked in or used, about satisfactorily, were is heard all that machine in the This being use was that its discontinued, it cause, probable devices a thousand other fate of ap- shared final success, do perfection the point proach between this differences machine and it. reach differences which rendered the those latter are just Brown’s to the valuable acquisition and a agriculture success, country. in 1848, be dis- patented plough, planting Earle’s than Todd’s more machine. It summarily even missed the seed, and was not depositing automatically operated the furrow was check-row planting; opened adapted mould-board; with a double and the furnished a plough means of attached to a di- scrapers covered by seeds behind It had but apparatus. seeding position agonal Seed was means a drum, deposited by frame, surface, its bottom cavities revolving having the seed into tube behind discharging hopper, plough. in for a seed-drill, 1849, was granted patent

Mumma’s describes a evidence; only in de- grain-drill, also put distribution of the seed in a more drills equal secure to vised hills, or &c. in “To the descending ascending furrows or small trunk is a with a jointed, the frame long hindpart the whole it, which apparatus to by seeding attached lever when it is from the transported place from ground is raised and the truck or lever for device of jack This to place.” Remy & Anticipation, Kelly. of the court. — when turned or transferred being prying up another, to bears some resemblance from one place frame method of front of his machine Brown’s raising or on drums the levers wheels. The by resting show introduced to this resemblance. It is probably that it cau have no however, serious effect in the slight, cause.

The machine of & comes next.* Remy Kelly They applied June, 1850, in but withdrew the a application 1850; for cause what does not We have appear. August, us a and before draw copy application accompanying models of the and the and examination of ings and reference thereto. The machine Remy Burgess middle, of a and rear front, frames, consisted parts, two seed-boxes mounted former by and being hoppers, drill-teeth, furnished below two which cut or being usual small furrow in the and scratched ground, through in the earth. the seed deposited Small rollers made in their surfaces were with cavities revolve carried seed-boxes, thus out and bottom of deposited drill-teeth in the usual manner of the seed drills.† were followed transverse row of The drill-teeth upright harrow-teeth These harrow-teeth covering grain. in a cross-bar framed into were inserted levers long were attached to front frame forepart by a This coustitutéd middle apparatus loose joint. frame. also attached to the rear frame was front frame aby bars, means side forward loose joint, by extending bolts or and was thereto pins, connected on supported wheels or bulkheads, roller four transverse consisting them bars sort of iron connecting together, making rolling which rested on crate, ground, supported driver’s means of bands and seat, pulleys gave revolving the seed-rollers before mentioned. motion to An iron crank reach, driver’s fitted within rear bearings * it, drawing p. supra, Fig. 9. aSee only They rollers shown the model. appear do not These † page 191. drawing on xxni. U VOL. [Snp. Kelly. Bcmy & Anticipation, court. — har- frame, enabled him cross-bar pry up holding frame row-teeth, and with it the rear end of the front was fast and This as drill-teeth. operation, tongue rested on end horses, raised the cross-bar and the rear front frame so as to lift the drill-teeth harrow- teeth out of the In it this respect produced, ground. means different, somewhat result similar to lifting the front frame runners means of levers acting fulcrum of wheels in machine. Only Brown’s ever made machine, however, made, was and this was for an merely Brookville, Indiana, experiment, year It did not contain for turning pulley-strap seed-rollers, which the and model exhibit application of the invention. walked Remy, trying it, crank, and, with a an the seed-rollers alongside gave hand, motion with his In this oscillating Burgess driving. acres, five way they planted Remy says planted even and cultivated both But the machine was never ways. used no aud was afterwards broken other was again up, ever made. made other machines Remy many corn-planting aon different but he said there was no demand principle, for a machine this kind. region contend an appellees was anticipation several material of Brown’s machine. But it is ob- parts it vious that had not the runners nor rollers, covering was nor it check-rows. As adapted planting presented in 1850, to the Patent Office and in the models exhibited to court, it was for an automatic planned drill-planter. in 1849, made when worked it experiment Remy hand, was a mere never experiment, repeated. It have one or ideas in presented advance of other it machines, but can be said to hardly ma- anticipate which we have described chine as Brown’s. Were it not application patent would justly regarded an abandoned set experiment, iueapable being up other Can the claim. fact that such an any against U2>plica- tion was made and afterwards withdrawn, and voluntarily never make renewed, difference? We think not. liad any Corn-planter Patent. of James Abbott.

Opinion Anticipation, tbe court. — it would a to & Kelly, been patent Penny actually granted di- case then have come have been different. The would seventh which 1886, within the section of act of rectly a or a a makes “description printed publica- “patent” to a further of invention a bar claimed, tion” patent a mere for a not men- therefor. But application patent can a such bar. It have on the tioned only bearing of invention or whole If prior discovery. upon question it of the evidence that the invention or alleged appears prior was an and was never only experiment perfected discovery use, into actual but was abandoned and never or brought inventor, the mere fact of revived by having alleged for a cannot take the applied therefor, unsuccessfully out of unsuccessful case of category experiments. maehiue we will that of The next examine is James which is Abbott, claimed an anticipation strenuously machine, or of material thereof. complainant’s parts Brimfield, iu Abbott resided Peoria Illinois. Models County, his are in evidence.* No of machine public description was No ever Abbott. applied produced. first He made his one frame 1846, having coulters, The seed was behind the two coulters. dropped and the of the machine over wheels it. coulters passed and he would soon abandoued the maehiue. Iu 1848 clog, made it in he another Instead of coul put operation.† he used in the form a sled runners, ters now something runner, aud make a with behind widen furrow wings of the runners was seed. One dropping pro place trial. was made of duced on the It wood shod with frame, The machine had but one one wheel, only iron. in the middle between the which was runners. On each wheel cams to L levers, side operate into the bottom of seed-boxes and worked dropped The seed was behind runners. covered corn by scrapers the runners. which followed Behind the wheel or wings * it, drawing supra, p. Fig. 10. See it, Ib., Fig. 11. drawing See † Kirkman. Anticipation, the court. — which the driver stood, there runuers platform aud or forward could ele- backward slightly by stepping This machine was automatic, the runners. or depress vate but the runner in common and had drill, a mere nothing Brown’s machine. then Abbott says: was, next machine which I constructed according

“The recollection, my certainly the best spring than 1853.” later then to describe the machine. It had

He but proceeds it and whilst exhibited some of the same frame, parts in it machine, found Brown’s a yet obviously machine from Brown’s, different intended as an auto- as, drill a matic instead of check-row But planter. our of the evidence which considerable judgment, weight (of is that it was was constructed taken) subsequently Brown’s, it it is further unnecessary consideration. give machine much relied Another on by appellees .was Illinois, a Kirkman, .Peoria farmer, County, but aud He lived in the formerly millwright engineer.* same Abbott, latter, as and the in his evidence, says neighborhood he made a his had last that after machine drawing (above was at Kirkman his house and referred took a to)', rough of the soon after made a sketch machine drawing, nearly he had it, which broad iron wheels. The like character shown, machine is very of Kirkmau’s exact models explicitly oue of the actual runners It produced. of it was being on frame two runners single front, composed standing in the tvheels runners rear. and two following seed the rear boxes or over end of the run hoppers was placed was let to the furrow aud down ners, tube through inclosed rear of the runners of an means in the automatic by device with the connected wheels. Between by operated gearing was a on driver the wheels sat or platform stood. on backward forward By stepping platform, to the on the position axle bearing changing * it, drawing supra, p. Fig. See the 2d machine. Opinion of the Kirkman’s Anticipation, (Wrigley’s) court. — the machine or down front wheels, could be tipped up as to facili- raise or the runners. This action was depress tated attached a bolt between tongue being freely the hounds so as of a A cross-bar to admit motion. hinged screwed to the and the front cross- of the hounds above top bar limited movement of the machine below tongue thus and also of furrow. In depth produced, regulated seat was first constructed a rigged rear driver, for the platform which, moving forward, backward and the same could be process tipping This afterwards abandoned. produced.

It had will thus be that Kirkmau’s machine some seen, It differed from it in features of Brown’s. prominent and not in hills check-row planter, being planting as a and hav- rows, drill, automatically simply acting abut frame. ing single much evidence,

Considerable apparently conflicting, when was adduced as to the time Kirkmau’s at rather several machines built three different times), (for were constructed. court here stated and examined [The as and this to date, testimony, continued.] the the leads us A review of entire evidence subject to machine, second the that Kirkman’s called conclusion the 1850; made the machine, was of early part that "Wrigley that he then laid he tried it it unsuccessfully; spring to use it until the did and of by, attempt again spring he had made material alteration in 1852, after it—which was after the made summer alteration 1851—and not as it would seem from the evidence of completed, Kingsley, This make would the until machine of spriug with that of Kirkman about Brown’s contemporary second and he in the machine, completed operated spring as it, 1852; machine, but would subse- completed bring machine which to the halt-sized Brown completed quent in the and 1851, exhibited spring publicly operated of that in September year. machine referred to Abbott, been by made having aid of Kirkman furnished him, was by drawings by Brown. Anticipation, Joab court. — Kirkman, made by third

most probably iron him having made one is the 1856, only wheels. the appellant’s on as relied antedating last machines Illinois.* County, also of Peoria Brown, those of Joab on the was experimenting to his testimony,

According ma he made In 1849 1849, 1850, subject no It bore under a one runner plank. chine with placed as to machine except resemblance to appellant’s In spring and it did not work runner, satisfactorily. two runners machine, be made a second having and a seed, cover them, wheels behind two running others, forward situated third than the wheel, larger for drop middle, for of working apparatus purpose as a check-row corn-planter, was intended the seed. It ping what was failed; and was tried for that purpose, was rows. It with it planted only single planted com As “It became Brown afterwards abandoned. says, In the same lumber year, stock yard.” mon my machine, his son or, another says, Brown made Joab no wheels each; but had runners them, with two had runners to cover the corn. They behind running with an hoppers, an shaft through appara iron running seed; and this shaft had for dropping tus taking up machine, outside end, at either a wheel giving machine had a seat for the driver, motion. This a revolving and the was bolted fast frame, that, tongue but only that there was no means the runners out of tilting he altered Brown says Joab ground. He apparatus. changing seeding spring shaft and substituted lever-bars

removed the en slides and an lever upright above hoppers, tering extending bars. He thus the seat, placed working dropper the driver on the In as well as seat. 1858 he placed behind the wheels as to run runners. As thus finally it altered bore some resemblance to the machine, appellant’s * one, last, principal drawing supra, p. Fig. a See Anticipation, Brown. Joab court. — it true, frame, It is had a in certain but single particulars. not be tilted out of the and could with no joint, hinged to in order and had dismount the driver dropper ground; around; nevertheless had device it to turn dropping who the seed in an attendant hand by by dropped worked driver and and had a seat for both check-rows, and dropper, wheels behind them cover had runners and running however, until 1853, thus seed. It was not long completed, machine. In the after the construction of appellant’s spring two other One was a Brown made machines. 1851 Joab with a two run frame, two-rowed machine single having rollers; but, Brown himself ners, two Joab followed by “as machine.” automatically drill-planting says, working “ left the lever and on “We off entirely,” says, depended do their own His son the wheels to dropping.” says was also to be worked a hand-lever an it by arranged on A attendant model was evidence, machine. put as the son this which, says, represents substantially to Joab Brown’s own but this model according testimony, machine which was altered Its fea represents stated. tures before Affected this substantially date, as to character it must uncertainty degree even on caution, with those on which it points received pre resemblances machine. Joab Brown sents appellant’s another machine in the of 1851, constructed spring considered, as he the final and most form perfect pi-esents, inventions. It consisted of frame, of his with three single wheels; no a seat the machine for the runners driver an worked apparatus hand-lever for dropper, seed check-rows. A model of it was dropping given Joab Brown for a in evidence. applied this 1852, but 31st, December machine withdrew subsequently he conceived the same. He idea of the says machine early spring completed and used it for 1st May, about corn, planting plant hundred acres that about There is some spring. ing this was made at an date; earlier evidence evidence agrees Joab weight testimony Corn-planter Patent. Pinn, Brown, Anticipation, Parley, Joab Case. court. — Brown. Its likeness and unlikeness to the ma appellant’s chine are from the above apparent description. appa for ratus seed consisted aof covering fan-shaped flange or tail behind the runner. One persons projecting who used it that he had to follow behind to cover the says seed, some which would remain uncovered where the was uneven. men ground Only above single tioned was made until 1853, when Joab Brown he had says about made, of them and sold them to various forty parties. 5th, In a letter to Patent Office, 1853, August urging he his for refers to this machine as application patent, result of seven He being years’ crowning experiments. his other as evidently machines or at regarded experiments, as least and usefulness the last secondary importance machine.

A machine of one invented or Febru- Farley, January was introduced in for ary, the ease purpose that Brown’s showing driver on improvement placing which formed one of the of his second subjects had been There was a patent, anticipated. long platform on Earle’s machine, the front on and fixed to part resting runners, rear axle of resting wheels covering The driver rode on this runners. following platform, he forward could the runners by stepping press deeper into the back he could raise gound, them stepping out of the the wheels as a fulcrum. The using ground, of this machine on some of the reissued will bearing patents be noted hereafter.

On the valve subject flipper (so called), appel- machines, lees have introduced two Charles Finn, for he for a which applied patent April, and the other Jarvis application rejected; Case, for 9th, December applied hereafter, will be examined when These devices we come valve to consider the claim contained in flipper infra, No. 1095 the reissued (see page 233). have thus over well as the explained, We gone Oct. 1874.]

(cid:127) runner, for had. of court. —Claim inventions and machines admit, will various subject consid- art under of special the history constitute was machine produced. that Brown’s the time eration, toup the extent are to determine we review of this In light and how claims, and various of his character patents valid or far void. they claim reissue obvious, that the of at a is

It very glance, a shoe runner of which is for construction No. 1037, cannot be sustained. machines for generally, seed-planting machine. Brown made his before device used That long it was to Thomas’s cottouseed-planter, Without adverting and was 1843, used James by contained Todd’s patent 1850, Joab by Kirkman probably Abbott . There before. is the same Brown in year year form shape appellant’s particular nothing diverse from others that which is pre- runner sufficiently of an invention. ceded to entitle it to the merit it, Most the other claims are more re- of complicated, their fair more careful consideration understand quire in view of what had been before. It scope, accomplished that, view, remarked in in our the several may passing reissues are for contained within the machines and things described but whether apparatus patents; original or are void inventions, for anticipated by prior other and claims reason any applicable patents generally, fraud in these re- The still of obtaining open. question as settled the decision of the issues must be regarded Commissioner Patents. is No. in the series of reissues

The first patent “seed- claimed as the invention which is appellant framework, constructed principally planting less than two runners which is uot supported front part and the rear shoes, upward-inclining edges, ar- wheels, on not less than two the latter being supported and for former, to follow substantially ranged set forth.” purpose is so constructed that an additional pair machine for the to it be attached purpose dropping

wheels Opinion of of 1036 the court. —Claim construed. where the soil such seed the nature of automatically

as to render method admissible check-row planting. we with that are not at But aspect present affects the concerned, except general description machine as whole. The describes manner specification its construction and both automatic operation plant- its we and hand It is in latter ing planting. aspect shall examine it. principally “ clause last of the above as and claim, substantially set throws forth,” us back to the purpose specification of the and the several elements of claim, for qualification the is combination The composed. patented thing a first, is not made machine, only, seed-planting principally framework; of two but, of it is distinct secondly, composed the front is on two or more thirdly, part supported parts; the rear fourthly, runnel’s edges; upward-inclining is wheels, two more to follow supported arranged part runners; and the each and all these are respective parts “ be thus constructed and to combined as and substantially the set for forth.” That is to the purpose and say, object of the machine as a machine is ex- purpose seed-planting to to be corn in that check-rows, so plant be plained may cultivated both construction is ways, and.its to adapted The devices for end. used both auto- effecting purpose, and in hand, described the matically specification, are claimed in aud affect the one they separate patents, only as and the in affect modify structure question general machine. and con- object purpose Again, the machine of framework two distinct structing parts, the runners other separately, supported wheels, is to be “so that the rollers rise expressed may fall the runners, without or so aud disturbing or move yield runners rollers.” may independently manner of The de- parts, particular connecting although is the in the of a scribed specification, subject separate of the runners and object purpose Again, patent. rollers, the latter to wheels or follow the former, arranged former to make a furrow set for the forth, seed, is The of 1036 not anticipated. court. —Claim “ the seeds.” latter to close earth down over press up men- and the several machine, parts adaptation made is thus tioned, to these several objects purposes, made combination of elements called for and in the claim under consideration. requisite its thus limited is claim narrowed considerably ma- It combination operation. substantially can said terial and no one of the entire parts to use the entire it who does not combination. infringe is, limited and whether, thus

The first to settle question invention, whether restricted, valid, or the patent inventions. thus was patented, by prior anticipated all seed- It is obvious that we out lay question for the specific drills. were not constructed purpose They was to constructed, for which this machine namely, plant and had not the check-rows, corn apparatus adapted Todd, drill such a though purpose. plough-shaped and roller drawn behind it had cutter under the front part direction. covering only step right grain, rows, and not was a mere drill, single adapted It planting check-rows; it was handled and operated plant an different manner from Brown’s. entirely inventions

Earle’s, & Mumma’s, Kelly’s may Remy description also be dismissed without observation. drills, were mere them heretofore shows that they given no and were not constructed had covering-wheels, the which Brown’s machine to, for for, adapted purpose seen, as the machine Besides, was before Remy made. a one, & mere abandoned was Kelly experimental drill, Abbott’s inventors. We out view also lay be constructed one that can 1848, only by possibility in had no had case. That brought covering-wheels, into not a check-row frame, but one and was planter. Kirkman’s machine had a frame or also but part; single in drill, was mere not in nor even check-rows, planting Besides, as a was and unfin- hills. incomplete when ished until alteration was made it in 1852, first rendered it was use. capable practical 1036,

Opinion of the valid. court. —Claim It is all of Kirk- those' urged appellees parts man’s machine which were and not sub- 1850, completed al- should considered as altered, sequently perfected, as did whole, was not machiné, though perfect., not of the inventor alter- subserve until expectation ations is were made in the It seeding apparatus true that inventor could' not claim undoubtedly subsequent as his invention the of which first separate original parts Kirkman’s machine and which worked consisted, satisfacto- This after machine was would rily perfected. prevent from his invention several appellant claiming consisted; of which Kirkman’s machine it would parts not from him such new combination of prevent claiming those with devices of his owu as would result in a use- parts ful satisfactory adapted of its purposes construction.

The machines of Brown' which are Joab more or less all on, relied frames composed entirely single rigid. The machine with runner, one in 1849, was a constructed and is not failure, have been at all like the pretended The machine with two rollers and appellant’s. large constructed in wheel, could automatic, only plant rows, so as to be worked one and failed way, entirely a check-row The other machine planter. or machines, con- structed in 1850, had but these did rollers, follow runnel's until altered and were not used cover- but for a shaft in corn, ing hoppers by turning the seed was This and is dropped. cleai’ly shown proven their thickness, which was little over an inch. They were abandoned for the three-rowed machine without rollers, which was built in 1851, and for which Joab Brown applied It December, that none of apparent these machines anticipated machine as appellant’s con- combined in the particulars claim of the taining reissued No. This patent, therefore, construed and limited the man- ner before we hold stated, to be valid. infringed Selby. and by Bergen of the court. —Reissue

The next is as whether, construed, thus question is the defendants. It needs but infringed by glance at which the defendant model of machine, Bergen’s large char to it has all the essential see that produced court, acteristics It is a machine.* seed-planting appellant’s of two machine, framework, made composed principally runners, distinct the front or on two parts, part supported with and the rear shoes, part sup upward-inclining edges, to wheels, on two the latter follow ported being arranged and each the whole and constructed and former, for the and manner substantially put together purpose to his as is done in Brown’s and specifi according can claimed cation. The which it be to only pretence the “framework” of which it is con be is that different, kind of framework described Brown structed not the “without in- his without specification, namely, gearing, other and wheels, fixtures, expensive spoked resembling or than it does a sled more its wagon carriage drag Brown construction.” By description, main general to show how simply evidently cheaply attempting not that could be it was be confined made, thing It as well contended that form. be that specific might wood, his invention to and that a ma intended to confine other made made of iron or metal, chine precisely though be not an because form, same would infringement, not have same quality cheapness simplicity would In we do understand fine, Brown he describes. form, but to this his invention cheap showing limiting to be it would bear constructed. and simply how cheaply his when fair we is the This, think, meaning language whole A literal specification. in connection taken it would be where repug is not to adopted construction sense reason of instrument. to the manifest nant is the suit of subject Selby, has all the case, the second others, v. Selby Brown * it, 196, Fig. drawing supra, p. See a Corn-planter Patent. The

Opinion of the construed. court. —Reissue 1038 material features above as contained Bergen’s.* specified We have are in no that both machines hesitation saying of the fringements appellant’s patent.

The next claim considered is that reissue 1038. tó be of describes nature the invention of appellant sought to be secured as follows:

“ The nature of invention consists combin- my this part machine constructed with a principally ing seed-planting with not less than two runners and framework, wheels, two between the and the rear a hinged-joint point tongue between what I term its (or of the machine ground sup- part one means of said be may, by so that part hinge-joint, ports), lowered, or on the other raised, adjusted, supported part ‘ mentioned; ‘the herein meaning part’ purposes in advance and the in rear of said part other part’ part hinge-joint.” the same and is in the claim nearly adopts language, terms:

following inis, under this with I claim combination “What constructed machine, framework, principally seed-planting wheels, than two runners less less than with not and the rear part between point tongue hinged-joint so that one of the framework machine, part the other lowered, sub- raised, part, cm adjusted, supported described.” stantially this claim as to a applying

Understanding confining of two with machine, parts, consisting separate seed-planting wheels under one and rollers or under the runners we do not find machines other, any produced feature of the in combination hinged-joint us particular referred to. Kirkmau’s came the elements the nearest as a if we should free con- it, designate hinged-joint his with his which was made machine, nection tongue between like those of a hounds, bolt wagon. a common machine lacked elements of the two distinct parts his But * 197, Fig. 18. drawing Selby’s p. supra, aSee experiment no anticipation. court. —Abandoned and are Brown’s, essential frames, implied as claim of an in the element patent. hinged-joint connected, is and in combination with it of which is it forms a and it the ma- useful valuable. Without part, chine would lack a material of its ingredient very efficiency and The device of and usefulness. connecting combining it with the and thus two con- integral parts and those as to a useful' parts produce necting combining §o invention, is that denominated effect, may properly have existed in other itself although hinged-joint its in use Indeed, machines this. perhaps suggested an one form is device. another, old hinged-joint, is exhibited the reaches a common whose It wagon, hind wheels, wheels and over fore inequalities passing rise and fall of each obstructions, and other. independently machine it has and But use- corn-planting specific effects, ful freedom runner namely, securing from needless disturbance from the rear of the machine part it a surface, its furrow of pursues path making along and in the attendant to raise the uniform depth, enabling runners ease out of the with ground containing a means lever on the other part. resting insist that this secure an‘ to appellees attempts patent to new and old device a that use, merely applied sup- new úse is to which the same that device posed analogous machine of & But we subserved have Remy Kelly. the machine of was a seen that & mere Kelly experi- Remy abandoned And the device in inventors. ment, ques- as an an invention, is not claimed nor as im- tion original is in combination other only it provement; patented material elements the machine to which it is attached as a an As element in that combination alone it is claimed. part. claim, in the viewed as an en- The combination expressed uses, new, and in reference to its is tirety, purposes a and useful And it is no new result. objection produces some for such a combination that validity patent elements of which is are not new. composed to several of the under consideration It is objected patents old parts pointed court.—New and out claim. do not state what of the maehiuo parts they patented new are are old, and what therefore parts which, void. There law in terms, nothing to do this. The of the act patentée requires language under which these drawn, that before patents inventor shall for his receive invention dis- any he shall deliver thereof, and of the man- covery description and eom- ner process making, constructing, using, same, clear, and full, in such exact terms pounding'the it; skilled in the art to enable and the reproduce person shall act directs that inventor “particularly specify out the or combination which he part, improvement, .point own This, claims as his invention or of course, discovery.” elimination of what he an claims as new involves from what admits be But what can a more he to old. be decla- explicit what is new and is ration of what old than the summary at claim the close of the the if patentee’s that specification, is in clear and distinct terms, made or terms so clear and as to be understood. It distinct that all the fairly implies old, if that the or, is does old, rest not claim applicant is concerned. If the it far as that his patent patentee by the claim at summary its including close, specification, what he claims as his out own in- distinguishes points all that is if we vention, That, it is can find it required. or is what he embarrassment, without claims difficulty as new; he if he does not the rest impliedly, disclaims expressly, form of is No words pai’ticular as if old. necessary is clear. meaning observations for apply

These combina- equally patents Where a improvements. tions patents patentee, his machine, claims as invention a certain describing .’after elements, or certain or device, combination of the part declaration, is an as machine, implied conclusive, so far if concerned, is as it wex*e that the patent expressed, as is or claimed combination thing only part specific True, as new. or some other regards per- the patentee for the have distinct patent portions not covered son may this; that will for itself. So far as speak patent Infringement of reissue 1039. court. — or com- are old is question concerned, remaining parts mon and public. for the declare, consideration under expressly patents claims; it

most referring, what part, generally patentee form substantial true, is to the embodying specification does not a reference if it invention. Such pi’oper and is often introduce confusion and necessary uncertainty, the too great enlarging restraining generality, literal narrowness of the claim. we are now

These to reissue remarks apply and we We sufficiently explicit; regard considering. think the is valid. The next is whether this infringed inquiry ’ of models before It is apparent inspection

appellees. referred, exhibit every requirement patent. “in with a have, combination seed-planting They clearly and con- framework,” machine, constructed principally under one two runners part separate parts, sisting between other, and two wheels under hinged-joint so that one machine, rear of tongue point raised, lowered, adjusted, framework as described in on the other substantially part, supported it is true, Brown’s In Selby’s specification. at the same not located point is seed-boxes) (the hinge-joint toe is at the front or of the machine, point in Brown’s as The substantial difference. is not a This runnei’. office, the same- as in and effect are Brown’s operation, purpose, more or less backward or a little for- machine, and a change the of the substantial identity ward does not change thing. location of the to the hinge-joint same remark applies rear of the is at the front machine, part which in Bergen’s frame. contended that it can be seriously see how

We do this an of patent. machines is not infringement the either of as claims, follows: contains two 1039 Reissue “ machine, ais seed-planting under this I claim What hand or is by mechanism operated the seed-dropping wherein xxiii. von. Infringement of the court. — attendant, an from ‘mechanical

by contradistinction drop- machine, in such the said attendant the ping,’ mounting upon marks made see the position may readily previously the mechanism to con- upon ground, operate dropping thereto, form as herein set forth. substantially machine, “I claim, also combination with seed-planting framework, which the composed substantially upon per- stands, who works or a lever son the seed-slides or valves sits equivalent, its driver or second attendant by raise or lower that framework that carries attendant ease the machine devices, thus seeding over sub- passing around, obstacles intervening turning as stantially described.”

The first of these claims, if construed simply claiming the machine, would placing seed-dropper prob void, as a mere ably result, claiming irrespective it means is if But construed accomplished. result claiming accomplishment by substantially the means described in the it is free from that specification, and we objection; construction, a favorable ought give as to sustain the if it can be done. fairly By reading the claim in connection with the clause, final thus, qualifying “the said attendant &c., mounting upon as herein set forth,” fair construction substantially would seem to include means and manner of him upon placing machine. This view corroborated reference to the ££ To enable body skilled in specification. others “ art,” says to make and this patentee, use invention, I will to describe the with proceed same, reference draw ings.” He then a detailed gives of the seat or description and its platform relation to the other and the mode parts, occupying same. using claim in Construing it manner, then a valid claim ? device of a similar only character at all competing matter of time, was that used Joab Brown, in his machines constructed or’altered in the of 1851, spring the same in the spring machine appellant’s was made. Which was first it is made, for us the impossible from evi- 227 The 1036, and 1039 different. court. —Nos. the dence to Joab well as Brown, tell. applicant, applied for a for oue his machines the arrangement patent having A was to the of a seat for the dropper. patent granted The and none was to Joab Patent Brown. appellant, granted amended as to Office the subsequently patent appellant’s include a claim for this Under these very question. thing to the circumstances, the absence of conclusive evidence in favor of contrary, presumption appellant. is on who sets burden of proof party up objection use” of “prior patent. against combination, claim is for as one second embracing, for elements, its or seat last the arrangement dropper described; new, also and if that was this combination must indeed, we in vain in And, new. shall look previous any the lever machine for here described the combination it is with which associated. the lever by itself, Standing as well as the exhibited experimen- hinged-joint But as, view, tal machine & our Remy Kelly. was never into successful until brought operation invention was we do not after Brown’s completed, regard fact referred to as seriously affecting question. combination described under con- patent particular and the claim is valid. is new, sideration however, an This is the to notice place, proper objection the three made reissues patents conjointly, namely: against It is contended are for same combination. We do think that substantially fact. We the reissue as a is the l’egard outline, machine in its most corn-planting comprising namely: constructed frame- elements, principally essential ” “ as and for the set forth in the work substantially purpose two frames or containing parts, loosely specification; connected; the other runners, supported by freely them, each wheels its distinct following having pur- indicated; seeding apparatus being arranged pose check-rows, whether hand, automatically for planting of each shown This method being specification. not call its does hinged-joint particular Corn-planter 228 The Patent. Infringement as to No. 1039. court. — of seat or for or loca-

appliances, particular arrangement tion for the is for a different com- Reissue 1038 dropper. the run- frames, or bination, separate including parts ners, the wheels, and so lastly arranged hinged-joint that raised lowered the framework part may claims, on the a seat first, other Reissue 1039 part. that, he may for the on'the platform machine, dropper, them; in addi- watch cross-rows and plant by secondly, lever, tion thereto, device of the particular by driver raise lower the framework that carries the may dropper.

This view of the relative as three objects patents, we that are not obnoxious to the think, shows objection raised. examined the

Having already question infringement as it reissues it respects 1038, 1036 remains to inquire whether the have reissue Of this appellants infringed there can be no doubt. In both of their machines the drop- on the is mounted machine aon seat or per platform arranged for that so as to observe the purpose, cross-rows, drop them; both, and in levers are by used (not precisely Brown’s, form thereto, equivalent substantially which the driver raise or lower same), by may that-part of the framework that carries the and the dropper seeding devices. In this lever is the rear machine, frame Bergen’s rear itself, which to the hinged seeding-frame, and is operated driver back and forward by tilting his own weight.

It is to examine reissue as 1010, there is unnecessary no have that pretence appellees infringed patent. second of reissues next to be considered. group No. after first, entire describing machine as Brown, to the issue of finally perfected by prior his second 8th, has patent, May following claims: “First. In combination awith seed-planting that is operated hand, the both the driver and placing the per- son valves, who the seed-slidesor operates upon in such attend to each his position particular duty Oct. and void. anticipated

Opinion of the court.—Reissue other, de- with that without interfering substantially scribed. “ claim, machine, I also in combination with a seed-planting hand, driver the is and the and by operated upon the valves the stand, who works seed-slidesor sit or so person stands, of seats or as that the one of weight said of locating the be used to counterbalance or overbalance may the persons other, of the for the of more or readily purpose raising weight the as and for the lowering seeding apparatus, substantially described.” purpose

These claims to those of reissue and 1089, analogous is the first machines of Brown, the Joab con- anticipated by and is altered of It structed spring pre- both tended that attendants on his appellant placed 1853, of when uutil the he the driver’s spring machines placed on the as well as twelve machines seat, dropper’s, and sold at that manufactured time. for the second claim is relative location of The the seats driver and such that one for the of them over- operator, of and thus more raise other, balance weight readily is The claim in or lower made seeding apparatus. only hand, to machines on which both reference operated by sit or stand. The seats themselves driver can operator in this little combination. The relative be of consequence of the attendants the material location thing. the frame of on-the

The process tilting seed-planter . fulcrum, as a of the driver by wheels weight shifting thereon, was exhibited in Kirkman’s sitting standing machiue, made model, spring Farley’s Patent Office publicly deposited January, February, does not fix the date of

The his appellant alleged improve- earlier than ment 20th first intro- April, being into the twelve machines built in that duced He was year. therefore, Kirkman and far as their anticipated, Farley, were identical his. do not come They machines within terms of his claim literal which refers the improvement hand, machines and which on operated only oper- subject-matter. court.—Reissue 1092 patentable no and, ator carried. Kirkman and had no Farley operator, on had none course, their machines. Was this difference material? The device was substan- not altered Brown form, difference operation, tially, purpose. only machine, was the presence dropper making before, to be raised than existed greater weight applying us check-row It seems that it was it to corn-planter. of an old to a new use. device application simply therefore, areWe that reissue 1091 is opinion, void. claim of reissue is as follows: “What I claim under this In is: combination with hand, operated by its seed-planting having seeding of the centre wheels, devices forward and forward driver’s seat and a connection, seat hinged locating in such to a line drawn relation the centres of the through wheels or as that seat the of said ground-supports, occupant himself, or his forward or may, moving weight throwing his seat, on the backward without of necessity rising, walking, devices, or near the or over force standing the seeding seeding into, from, or the raise ground, apparatus substantially as described." After careful consideration of this we claim, are brought

n tothe conclusion that the of it is not subject patentable. Prior inventions the driver the placed on having the constructed and in such manner that his having platform or backward forward movement would raise or lower the and the seat itself not claimed seeding apparatus, as being it can be contended that the new, hardly location proper the same the seat for the effecting object, exercise required inventive power. reissue next after the patent, machine describing its and as with runners before, front its frame, wheels and seat the its for driver the frame, rear over wheels, and con- for the trivance raising front’frame, lowering its seat over the its runners, the dropper hinged-joint, &e., concludes follows: as

“ There are machine points that have unvarying or to the viz.: heights regard ground, positions point Coíin-planter of the court.—Reissue 1093 void. necks, its is defined horses’ to of the as height tongue, it is of course attached, upon and they standing ground, of the or wheels or axle and the journals covering supporting between these F, as roll on fixed ground, points, F between the front and rear connection hinged part or so as to admit of the seed- machine, made raising lowering , devices. ing described the nature and of this fully object thus

“Having invention, what I inis, claim under this com- my that has a with a machine seed-planting bination hinged its fixed between and with its joint support, yielding points said so devices between points, seeding connecting fixed that between said as points portion support parts devices be machine raised carrying seeding up on the machine, the attendant riding of the ground by out necks, horses’ and the tongue carried by supporting be for the wheels, substantially described.” purpose claimed here, after the combi- thing defining The precise “ form is, it is to the so of which part, nation connectingof ” “ mentioned, as to result parts produce substantially If this means described.” purpose as and include connection will every parts produce any as described” result is “substantially result to enable (which the machine, to raise attendant, riding portion devices out of the carrying seediug ground on the horses’ carried necks and the then wheels), for the Kirkman, claim anticipated by connection in his machine attendant, the enabled the on parts of riding raise the to front which carries machine, the seed- part the the out of when it would be ground, apparatus, suspended ing and the wheels; necks and he horses’ the had a on hinged fixed between the of The points support. same joint might said the machine & if it Remy Kelly, were to be into consideration this determining taken question. But to be claim is construed as limited to the the if mode of the machine parts appellant’s connecting (being between and, the two frames, connection hinged therefore, Kirkman’s and to from the machine), different means by result the final accomplished, namely, the by subject-matter. patentable of the 1094 no court. —Reissue driver’s ou the there- of the (and, weight shifting then fore, different from & this Kelly’s), Remy objection it modified, thus would would be obviated. But substantially for a mode 1038, with reissue simply correspond being the which was done driver ou that, with the doing driver the 1038, with the before, under employ- ground, the mode of used Kirkman. addition operation only ing the two combinations would be other respects precisely In same. the this therefore, cannot be

We opinion, patent sustained. next reissue is for matter too frivolous patent,

to form the. invention. It is for subject Bimply peg to the rear the machine from prevent stop tipping the much driver on to the No dump mechanic ground. skill would construct machine any of the character described without some such This providing arrangement. is not sustained. patent

The latest of the series, reissue is for a pecu- valve in the liar tube which the seed is through dropped called the valve. When .the machine ground, flipper is motion, the time taken for the seed to from drop hop- to the it to from a drop per ground, supposing height only 20 inches, would it forward more than a carry foot its and thus after carry beyond discharge, cross-row. therefore, to important, drop It became seed from a point or from the bottom of the near tube ground, instead of at movement each lever hopper, operator. this two movements; do required To dropping tube; from the into the hopper seed other for dropping thence to it from ground. By device described in which was at noticed patent, this commencement of of these movements both of the seed take opinion, at place same instant one movement of the hand; hill into for one being dropped seed at ground the same seed next hill that the time dropped into the tube. claim following words: thus described fully “Having my invention, what I claim Corf-planter anticipated. court. —Reissue which both lever, with a by so combining is under this patent, or slide and a a valve seed-hopper be may operated, motion of the lever seed-tube, as that a by in the half valve which by they operated, on the riding operator the seed at periods, close passages regular shall both and open only, substantially quantities measured described.” pass this was effected was mode stated, before by As slender a valve in the seed-tube long composed by placing middle, on metal, pivot suspended of a slip the other end forward would one end was when pushed that this each movement of backward. Iu way be pushed of seed into the let a tube on would extremity charge upper the simultaneous move- it whilst there, side keep one of the lower would extremity previous ment discharge on the other side. charge endeavored to that this show

The appellees apparatus inventions of Finn and Charles Jarvis by anticipated that he mentioned.* Finn invented Case, before his says or fall in the summer of 1851. The machine seed-drop consisted of side or back to the vibrating apparatus ping movements, seed-tube, backward required each forward, for hill of corn, other alter dropping the tube. It was and closing operated opening nately by the valves iu connection with hoppers. levers But one movement of hill or check-row required each lever into the a reverse tube, seed movement to let let movement was this double And at repeated out. every Brown’s Whereas, both by apparatus results cheek-row. movement; a forward move single were accomplished for one check-row and a dropping ment back effecting it for the next. is It movement evident effecting ward that between there was a the two similarity processes although It be different. Brown’s essentially used Finn. process If an improvement only is, so, still it only improvement (that he claims his patent. he uses it) * 24, these, 2-3, p. Figs. supra, drawings See Corn-planter Patent. The Opinion of the Selby Bergen. infringed by court. —Reissue 1095 The machine of he he constructed Case, swears is March, 1858, in form, still more unlike Brown’s though less unlike in valves, It has operation. two independent to tube, let'the seed and one at hopper into bottom of the tube to let These two valves are so it out. at connected chain or are both opened string once. A is to them as as shut soon spring arranged possi- ble, so seed admitted above prevent from escaping until the next movement below of the lever. This apparatus, true, isit but one movement of the hand for each requires But other. dropping, spring performing spring has to be drawn the force of the hand so as to have the recoil. The same necessary has to be exerted by strength as if he made his both hand. operator movements is It evident is that this device also different from appel- lant’s. The two have similarities, essentially distinct machines.

But it is insisted Brown, a news- I860.,admitted article that old. We was question paper process have examined the construc- article, and, to our according his tion, declaration amounted in substance to more nothing than that the was the double old principle drop (which and that Case’s of it was probably application true), old not be but it does not may may con- (which true); tain, or to, amount an admission that his own peculiar pro- was old. cess think, therefore,

We that this must be sustained. The last machine. clearly Selby infringed valve mode it are The almost flipper operating pre- the same. cisely

In case it is contended that Bergen lever is used no rod backward moving connecting forward between the A fixed hoppers. perpendicular is used is, instead handle lever. whether question that is such an alteration character of change in view is to into combination. the hand object put which he can move the connect- operator something by rod, and the instant valves, ing consequently open Clifford, JJ., Miller, Davis, dissenting. It comes to tbe cross-row. of no consequence the cross-bar world whether moves in the same direction reverse lever or in the direction. A with his hand working and the connect- fulcrum between the hand on a pivot latter to move in the reverse direc- rod would cause the ing haud; a lever on a or ful- to that pivot tion of working would rod, cause crum below or beyond connecting hand; would a lever to or handle latter move with “a fixed the rod. The is for lever or its to claim .firmly combination with other "Whilst in things. equivalent,” is lever, cases a mere handle not the of a most equivalent of the same functions, because not capable performing it is an because it does this case equivalent, perform pre- function in the same the same substantially cisely way. both machines are an of In our judgment infringement the patent. detail, have thus,

We with over perhaps unnecessary gone various and considered the and questions raised points is, cases. The result that the reissued these num- patents, and 1036, 1038, 1039, bered of first series, respectively the second are sustained series, of good valid and that arc the same. appellees patents, infringing - and the causes remanded, to be pro- reversed, Decrees ceeded According to law. CLIFFORD, Mr. Justice whom concurred with Justices DAVIS, MILLER dissenting. for a to file in

Applicants the Patent required a written of invention Office their description and of the manner and process making, constructing, using clear, concise, in such same, full, and exact terms as to enable in the art skilled or science to any person it apper- with which is most tains, it connected, nearly to make, same; and use and in the construct, ease of a machine he must thereof and the principle best explain mode in he has contemplated so as applying principle, from other it inventions. Patents distinguish granted with- Davis, JJ., Clifford, Miller, dissenting. as the invalid, out those conditions are compliance in is that every act express requirement Congress ventor or receive discoverer shall do shall so, before for his invention discovery.* to the complainant Letters-patent granted from the eftect secoud of second take August, date of the is to the patent. Seed-planter February prior the name of the invention patent, given is denominated specification introductory part “ new and useful seed-planters planting improvements minute corn and smaller description given Very grains.” devices of ma- and of several which the for the declared chine composed, purpose enabling art skilled in the to make and use the others invention. it to without all details, Suffice into say, entering numerous devices described as of the machine ingredients of not one them is nor is it claimed that new, the patentee invented machine one or of the either any ingredients it is which "What he claims'in of composed. is patent horizontal as follows: or wheels' dis- (1.) oscillating in tbe of the bottom tributors slots and tubes hopper, having in combination sizes, with the various caps stationary for of different kinds and discharge pins qualities He claims the also seeds. (2.) arrangement covering rollers, mounted as described, the functions performing seed, the cutters in covering elevating turning also cutters to different adjusting depths. of the descriptive

Tested portion specification is second claim opinion better also for a combi- but in the view taken case nation, it is unimportant it be as a whether method regarded the. accomplishing result or as combination of the described described ingre- end, to eftect the same as it is dients clear that quite does not claim that he is the and first in- original patentee one of the several ventor devices of which the entire any all doubt the Beyond con- composed. invention

* 16 Large, Stat. at Clifford, Miller, Davis, JJ., dissenting. the two combinations in the sisted of described respective and it is certain that the claims, equally letters-patent sufficient to secure the full in all respects enjoyment machine to Nevertheless the patentee. pat- patented same, and on the sixteenth of Febru- surrendered entee same reissued to him amended 1858, the speci- ary, which contains claim. Instead of only claiming fication of old as in the patent, a combination ingredients, original reissued a shoe for a fur- patent claimed the. opening has a convex in front and a which row, edge seeding-tube so that it cut end, may any rear through grass, open in its and hold it until the seeds are furrow, open deposited aout as set forth in the same, substantially specification. the reissued was in form patent Like original but inasmuch as it was not suffi- valid, both operative all other supersede comprehensive improvements ciently surrendered second time and caused the the patentee to be reissued five invention parts, embracing original claims, all of one are involved in the except several action. present cease to be a cause of action from the patents

Surrendered takes nor can the owner the surrender place, moment an recover, even for infringement preceded the claim had surrender, profits unless damages passed the surrender took before place. Such into judgment' aas cause of action, be ad- inoperative though patent, an issue that as evidence to support disprove mitted for the same as is not invention patent original. reissued as made to such to a patent, also be may repealed Reference construction of a reissued to aid in if the statute, patent, it but ceases operative for latter ambiguous, any as much so a statute, and repealed can just other purpose effect to or diminish the have the enlarge operative never reissued of a patent. words and are person public grants, every

Patents claiming any an instrument must that such show under right right instrument; nor can he is secured be bene- by claimed that the claimed was secured showing right by fited Davis, JJ., Miller, Clifford, dissenting. and of secures the reissued also unless patent surrendered patent, the same. clear that it is these

Viewed iu the suggestions light in this case solely upon depend complainant the rights which are the reissued patents the last-mentioned patents, in the alleged bill complaint, mentioned have that the respondents infringed. complainant are kinds set various up by respondents Defences of as follows: of the bill of complaint, to the (1.) allegations and first iuventor of is not the That complainant original said several men- in the described patents the improvements that the deny bill tioned in They complaint. (2.) ¿he were issued faith, said new good they allege patents are not for same invention as said reissued that patents either in the and embodied patent that described original That the reissues of original patent. (3.) prior in- five reissued letters-patent severally last-mentioned aud and that do effect, in law and void of no valid confer to the as he such complainant any right monopoly to claim. pretends alleges remarked to show that the been has already origi-

Enough was a combination old nal ingredients effected; or, in that words, described result was other iu a new combination of invention consisted patented which was one of the described every proved ingredients, are not the subjects to be old. Old proper ingredients as a combination, other form than letters-patent any is the reason proper subject plain nothing which is not new and useful. both same must be for the as the

Reissued invention patents condition is to second just applicable original, first; is the second i’eissue relieved in reissue as to the nor of'that a case from the full force condition in respect any reissue is divided where invention into several parts. useful new and combination

Undoubtedly consisting old be the proper subject letters-patent ingredients result, if the combination a new useful produces 239 Oct. Miller, Clifford, Davis, JJ., dissenting. does not authorize to surrender act of patentee Congress to the same for the reissue in- such separate patent reason that the are old, for plain ingredients gredients, that and for the additional reason patent separate as is not the same the combination of several ingredient ingredients.* to

Authorities these are support propositions unnecessary nor is it self-evident, to do more necessary than refer to the several claims of the to several reissues under to every consideration show that one those reissues are invalid, both for the reason that the alleged improvements old, and also the reason that the invention embodied in is each of the reissued different from the one patents secured Even court here patent. admits original that is each of those reissues “for a distinct and separate invention to have been original made part alleged full of which is complainant,” exhibited in proof claims reissued respective patents.† are as They follows: to 1. No. that is a claim Appended much 1036.—

more than is to be found either of the comprehensive four it not a claim for a other patents, plainly combination, one for whole as was machine, nor admitted in argu ment What he there claims is a seed- complainant. machine constructed planting principally framework, of which is on not less front than two part run supported ners, shoes, rear upward inclining edges, less on not than two wheels, latter supported to follow the former. being arranged that claim is not intended cover whole Evidently machine; nor would it benefit the even if it complainant receive is not construction, could that pretended was the and first inventor of such a original planting nor specification original describe such an invention. Machines original professed kind have existed for a before the very long period * Rees, Wallace, Wells, Gill v. Gould Id. 1. v. † Corn-planter Patent. Miller, Davis, JJ.,

Opinion Clifford, dissenting. of and whereof date of the even a complaiuaut’s patent, period the of man not to runneth the memory contrary. claimed in this No. is except Nothing patent 1037.—

the ruuuer a ma- construction of a shoe or seed-planting with its suffi- chine, with an point inclining upward edge, and or it cut and over, raised so that will climb ciently up break obstacles without forc- materially through intervening at and the earth its front widening ing laterally part, towards the rear end furrow in which the seed to so as a be open and be to furnish a deposite*}, planted may enough long the framework the machine. of of support Explanations as it that is the that certainly patent unnecessary, plain claim is for distinct of the combina- separate ingredients tion in the embodied patent. original this claims

3. No. 1038.—Under patent complainant between the of rear joint hinged point tongue of machine in combination part seed-planting so that one framework machine, part raised, may lowered, on the other adjusted, Nor supported is part. to show that the claim the necessary any argument of the is for one and distinct separate com- ingredients bination embodied all of which original patent, old. confessedly claims are made in

4. No. 1039.—Two as fol- or, for the lows: seat attendant, (1.) language claim, the of the attendant upon mounting wherein the mechanism seed-planter, seed-dropping hand, in such a that he see by position may readily operated made marks upon ground, operate previously mechanism to conform thereto. He also dropping (2.) with a claims a combination lever, seed-planting or its the driver or second attendant equivalent, raise lower framework that carries devices. the attendant and the seeding the lever or its is the sub- Manifestly equivalent principal claim, of that reference made to certain being ject-matter describ- other means of seed-planter merely parts to be and the level’, functions performed by ing Oct. 1874.] JJ., Davis, dissenting. Clifford, Miller, and use; nor does any its x-equire

results to be attained as it old, is matter the lever to show argument known before that it was well common long knowledge was issued. complainant original patent claims are also made No. patentee 1040.—Two He wheels claims pair in this auxiliary patent: (1.) car- machine, in combination with the axle, an seed-planting two cover- not less than two runners and ried mainly upon the double the for purpose portion taking ing-wheels, the the runners atid other wheels, off from weight from the machine means of converting readily affording an He also to automatic seed-sowex*. hand-planter (2.) or axle of the wheels hinged claims the auxiliary hanging so that more or less of the machine arms or levers, adjustable the wheels. auxiliary placed upon may remarks those All claims is necessity any upon super- are not the the admission by seded by infringed respondents. reissues are included in the

Four of the five charge, that the have the in- also complainant respondents charges held him, other also five patents by reissued fringed to the secure to him the exclusive l’espectiveimprove- right all of which to the same described, ments therein appertain and smaller machine for corn planting grains. will first be made to the from

Reference original are derived. Like the which those several reissues preced- were all derived these from a reissued patents, single ing 8th, 1855, as issued May appears by patent, original is an which it is claimed record, improvement upon prior patent. original made some

Doubtless patentee change original as portion specifi- appears by descriptive he ; l’ollei’s, cation as for increased example, enlarged connected those the side cross pieces pieces, by length frame in two and constructed the denominated pai’ts, pieces, real’, seat on the fi’out and for the driver placing long he slide or to back, in order that forward end, fi’out when to the furrow, tilt machinery necessary deepen VOL. XXIII. Davis, JJ., Clifford, Miller, dissenting. from, front the shoes

to raise the occasion ground, movement; calls for such a but invented no new ingredi- device, ent did he into the nor introduce element any known, machine which was well all of which previously will from the claim when with sufficiently appear compared without the details reproducing specifi- drawings, annexed It contains cation patent. speci- single which, effect, in substance and fication is regard, runners, claims is the valves, follows: "What he with their with the and their combination hoppers plates, together adjustment of the valves means of levers and and the driver’s for the cams, weight, purpose carrying seeds each vibration of the droppiug lever, depth planting. regulate Tested contained description specification that the not doubted was a valid one for the pateut de- combination, which, scribed doubt, all beyond composed of all as an invention for a ingredients. combi- Regarded it nation as an may improvement the regarded upon the invention described in first-mentioned original patent, that it but it is clear contains devices no quite such except as had before been well known to mechanics. long and valid it still was not

Though operative satisfactory the because effective to complainant, sufficiently shut out other seeds. improvements planting Accordingly, November, the tenth of he on surrendered the patent on the same was, same and the reissued to day, him with a as follows: He claims the claim, the seat for single locating of in the rear the the driver axle in supporting combination frames or the so that joint, with as hinged hinged the driver seat, his back, forward or cu the moves rear frame act may or the seed loweriug as lever raising of the ma- it throw into or out of and thus the chine, as ground, circum- stances may require. it would be difficult to frame a

Probably claim which more would the true nature embody of exactly the actual but still it was not improvement, to the com satisfactory on the eleventh of December, he plainant, sur Miller, Davis, JJ., Clifford, dissenting. to him in rendered the and the same was reissued patent, five as separate follows: patents,

1. No. 1091.—Two claims are contained this patent follows: the driver and person both placing (1.) in such a who the seed-slides or valves, operates position each to his that attend particular duty seed-planter may The so lo- without that of the other. with (2.) interfering those, in combination the seats or stands for persons, cating one of the machine, with weight may persons overbalance be used to counterbalance or weight other, for or more readily raising lowering purpose the seeding apparatus. in this No. 1092.—He claims locating

the seat in the machine in such relation a line drawn the centre of the wheels or through supports gi’ound of the seat himself or throw- the occupant may, by moving his forward or backward on his without the seat, ing weight near or over or necessity rising, walking, standing devices, force into raise it seeding seeding apparatus from the grouud. No. 1093.—His claim in this is the so connect- between fixed described parts

ing points machine that the devices portion carrying seeding be raised the attendant out up ground by riding on machine and be carried or horses’ necks tongue and the wheels. supporting

4. No. 1094.—"Where claims a lock-block stop, the rear combination prevents part, of the frame from so low to strike ground descending rear inconvenience the the of seat the upon occupant por- tion frame. is a valve or for

5. No. 1095.—His claim in patent in seed-tube, slide the a valve and seed-hopper a of with a both that half-motion lever combining operating lever the shall the open operator riding close the at and and pass only seed-passages regular periods the right quantities. these

Most of ten reissued are patents single iugre- 'Patent. Davis, JJ., Miller, Clifford, dissenting. and in described original the combinations client of is for a and others separate one of the and every patents, combinations; and of those the other of one or distinct part is that he complainant decision set up rule of as if the several these several just mass ingre- patents may claim one were all described in patent embracing dients of each and every respective ingre- for a combination Such in these ten several patents. theory, dients included is that absurd, is it certain it in simply my judgment, case in in decided nor treatise finds any upon no support any in cases. the rules and practice to show that such theory present Argument as it shown that suit is plainly scarcely necessary, that of the bill complaint alleges improvements several con- contained in those letters-patent inventions an machine for entire stitute parts seed-planting, separate be constructed for use and used one that they may that com- department agriculture; have respondents constructed plainant charges and vended the and used the same machines machines all those others used imitation to be improvements described in the inventions reissued except improvement which it is admitted is not No. infringed respondents. in those

All the described ten reissued ingredients patents old, and it was at the admitted no argument contains a claim for a combination of the patents several said described séveral reissued ingredients patents, case rests basis on the that the and that several claims them are valid or some of to a com- though amounting bination.

Valid new may combination of patents granted old that the new provided appears combina- ingredients, a new and useful result, tion but the produces invention in such a case consists the new entirely combination, and can, if he other make a may, different any party substantially of the same combination irse ingredients, any than less number of for the ingredients whole, reason 245 Clifford, Miller, Davis, JJ., dissenting. Opinion of extends that the the combi- only monopoly patent nation and not to the considered.* separately ingredients for a machine or be

Patents also granted sepa held device, but it cannot be and distinct that rate such it be unless is the patentee valid proved patent inventor of the and first patented.† thing original devices those reissued Noue patented separate no and it conceded that one of the new, being patents as that such a combination embodied contains patents any it is clear in either patents, my original judgment should be decree of the Circuit Court un- affirmed, that the several these massed less the aud patents theory can.be converted from construction be patents by judicial sepa- into for a and distinct combina- rate ingredients described in the all the several tion of patents ingredients the bill mentioned complaiut.- an cannot such of justice accomplish con- object Courts by for several mode, other nor in struction any reasons: (1.) of construction is Because restricted to the province ascertainment meauing language employed can Because object only grant. (2.) accomplished surrender of these by reissue of patents a matter within the which is exclusive pateut, juris- original Because the commissioner. each (3.) diction these distinct grant. Because the separate (4.) patents such a is restricted to the in construing grant, court language Because several power. (5.) granting employed pat- devices and distinct do for several separate ents not in law combination, for a and, to a amount therefore, cannot a court-of be declared justice. took The CHIEF JUSTICE no judgment case; in this been had before given argument-having he was case was held appointed. under advise- long ment, and the were opinions until given Reporter after was rendered. judgment long * Black, 428; v. Campbell, Prouty Peters, Vance v. Ruggles, Osborne, v. 11 Wallace, Seymour †

Case Details

Case Name: The Corn-Planter Patent

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: May 18, 1874

Citation: 90 U.S. 181

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS