PARKER & WHIPPLE COMPANY V. YALE CLOCK CO., 123 U. S. 87 (1887)Subscribe to Cases that cite 123 U. S. 87
U.S. Supreme Court
Parker & Whipple Company v. Yale Clock Co., 123 U.S. 87 (1887)
Parker and Whipple Company v. Yale Clock Company
Argued October 20, 1887
Decided October 31, 1887
123 U.S. 87
The first eight claims of reissued letters patent No. 10,O62, granted March 14, 1882, to Arthur E. Hotchkiss for improvements in clock movements on an application for a reissue filed July 19, 1881 (the original patent, No. 221,310, having been granted to Hotchkiss November 4, 1879, on an application filed July 29, 1879, and a prior reissue, No. 9656, having been granted April 12, 1881), are invalid because not for the same invention as that of the original patent.
The statutes and the decisions of this Court on the question of the necessity that a reissued patent should be granted only for the same invention as the original patent reviewed.
What was suggested or indicated in the original specification, drawings, or Patent Office model is not to be considered as a part of the invention intended to have been covered by the original patent unless it can be seen from a comparison of the two patents that the invention which the original patent was intended to cover embraced the things thus suggested or indicated in the original specification, drawings, or Patent Office model and unless the original specification indicated that those things were embraced in the invention intended to have been secured by the original patent.
In this case, the original patent was amended so as to cover improvement, not covered by it, and which came into use by others than the patentee free from the protection of the patent, and there is no evidence of any attempt to secure by the original patent the inventions covered by the first eight claims of the reissue, and those inventions must be regarded as having been abandoned or waived so far as the reissue is concerned.
In equity. To restrain alleged infringement of letters patent. Decree dismissing the bill. Complainants appealed. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary