Same v. Same

Syllabus

Same v. Same. No. 231. The “Boyden machine” does not infringe the patent of A. B. Taylor. The practice of reissuing patents for the purpose of interpolating abstract generalizations, so as to cover subsequent inventions made by others, is condemned. Bill in chancery, by which the complainant charged that the defendants were using a certain machine for the manufacturo of hat-bodies, which' infringed a patent originally granted in 185(> to a certain A. B. Taylor, and subsequently, in 1860, reissued, for hardening the bodies of hats by means of rollers while on the perforated cone upon W'hieh they had been formed, with a contrivance to give them the reciprocating motion required in the operation of being hardened. In the original patent of Taylor, of 1856, the claim was limited to his “ arrangement” for hardening the body in a dry state, by “ machinery operating substantially as set forth.” The complainant, who had purchased this patent, afterwards, however, saw the machine known as Boyden’s, and more particularly described in the preceding case. He then (1860) surrendered his patent and obtained a reissue, in which he altered his claim of invention from an “ arrangement of machinery” to a claim for a “vibrating concave surface.” The difference between the invention as claimed in the original patent, and as subsequently set forth, as well as the general nature of his invention and claim, will appear more minutely by the juxtaposition of them in parallel columns. Original Patent,