Sexy Individuals Do Slot :)

The specification of the Cook patent describes a buckle with a slot reduce through considered one of its end-bars, so that the tip of the band may be slipped via sidewise as an alternative of being pushed by way of endwise. The defendants buy the buckles and severed hoops at the cotton-mills, as scrap-iron, the hoops, when purchased, being in bundles, bent, and being items of unequal lengths, some minimize at one distance from the buckle and a few at another. They so combined it after they mixed it with a band fabricated from the pieces of the outdated band in the way described. In using the tie one finish of the band is hooked up to 1 end of the buckle by a loop in that finish of the band, after which the band is handed around the bale, and its free end is slipped, by a loop made in it, through a slit in the buckle, around the opposite end of the buckle whereas the bale is under strain. As a tie the defendants reconstructed it, although they used the old buckle with out repairing that. Ct. Rep. 537. There, as here, the lapse of time, and sports369 laches based mostly upon it, had been thought of immaterial, as a result of the reissued patent was for a distinct invention from that described in the unique.
Ct. Rep. 1137, in these phrases: ‘It follows from this that if, on the date of the difficulty of the unique patent, the patentee had been aware of the nature and extent of his invention, an inspection of the patent when issued, and an examination of its phrases, made with that cheap diploma of care which is habitual to and expected of men within the administration of their own pursuits in the odd affairs of life, would have immediately informed him that the patent had failed totally to cowl the world of his invention. We are therefore of opinion that the circuit court was clearly in the fitting in deciding the reissue void as to the third and fourth claims, on the ground that the correct to use for it had been lost by the laches of the patentee and his assignee. The outline had to be changed in the reissue, to warrant the brand new claims within the reissue. The defendants contend that they don’t mix the band with the buckle, and do not infringe the third claim of the Cook patent, or the third, fourth, and fifth claims of the Brodie reissue, or the claim of the McComb patent, because they don’t bale cotton with the tie.
We are subsequently of opinion that the defendants have infringed the third claim of the Cook patent, the third, fourth, and fifth claims of the Brodie reissue, and the claim of the McComb patent. The Cook patent expired March 2, 1879; the Brodie patent, March 22, 1880; and the McComb patent, January 29, 1882. The plaintiffs are the American Cotton-tie Company, (Limited,) a British company; James J. McComb, administrator of Mary F. McComb, deceased; and the stated James J. McComb, Charles G. Johnson, and Emerson Foote, every in his personal behalf and as a copartner in a firm called the American Cotton-tie Company. The go well with was brought for the infringement of three several letters patent: No. 19,490, granted to Frederic Cook, March 2, 1858, for an ‘enchancment in metallic ties for cotton-bales,’ and extended for seven years from March 2, 1872; reissued letters patent No. 5,333, granted to James J. McComb, as assignee of George Brodie, March 25, 1873, for an ‘improvement in cotton-bale ties,’ (the original patent having been granted to Brodie as inventor March 22, 1859, and reissued to him April 27, 1869, and prolonged for seven years from March 22, 1873;) and No. 31,252, granted to J. J. McComb, January 29, 1861, for an ‘improvement in iron ties for cotton-bales,’ and prolonged for seven years from January 29, 1875. They’re severally identified as the Cook, the Brodie, and the McComb patents.
There is nothing no matter in the drawings to show that the patentee claimed to be the inventor of that part, separate from the mixture, as a distinct novelty, helpful by itself, or in some other mixture; neithe is it so described in the specification. All that can be said in respect to the drawings is that they present the pitman-spring system as a part of the bolt intended to be covered by the patent, and described as a mixture of which that system forms a component. This is an attraction from a decree dismissing a invoice in equity for the infringement of letters patent granted to the plaintiff January 22, 1884, for ‘enhancements in lead-holders for pencils,’ which (omitting the drawings and the explanation of them) totally reveals the invention claimed, and the type of lead-holders or lead-tubes beforehand in use, and recognized to the patentee, as follows: ‘The thing of my current invention is to carry the lead or crayon in pencils from slipping again within the tube when presesed upon by the tube when pressed upon by the lead. This is an attraction by the plaintiffs in a go well with in equity from a decree dismissing the bill of complaint.