The specification of the Cook patent describes a buckle with a link slot lower by way of considered one of its finish-bars, so that the end of the band could also be slipped by way of sidewise as an alternative of being pushed by way of endwise. The defendants purchase the buckles and severed hoops on 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 some at another. They so mixed it when they combined it with a band product of the items of the old band in the way in which described. In utilizing the tie one finish of the band is attached to at least one finish of the buckle by a loop in that finish of the band, after which the band is passed across the bale, and its free end is slipped, by a loop made in it, by a slit in the buckle, around the opposite end of the buckle while the bale is below strain. As a tie the defendants reconstructed it, though they used the outdated buckle without repairing that. Ct. Rep. 537. There, as here, the lapse of time, and laches based mostly upon it, had been considered immaterial, because the reissued patent was for a unique invention from that described in the original.

Ct. Rep. 1137, in these phrases: ‘It follows from this that if, on the date of the problem of the original 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 terms, made with that affordable degree of care which is habitual to and expected of men within the management of their own pursuits within the strange affairs of life, would have instantly informed him that the patent had failed totally to cowl the realm of his invention. We’re therefore of opinion that the circuit court was clearly in the appropriate in deciding the reissue void as to the third and fourth claims, on the bottom that the fitting to use for it had been misplaced by the laches of the patentee and his assignee. The description had to be changed in the reissue, to warrant the brand new claims in the reissue. The defendants contend that they do not 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 declare of the McComb patent, because they do not bale cotton with the tie.

We are therefore 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 corporation; James J. McComb, administrator of Mary F. McComb, deceased; and the stated James J. McComb, Charles G. Johnson, and Emerson Foote, every in his own behalf and as a copartner in a firm referred to as the American Cotton-tie Company. The swimsuit was brought for the infringement of three a number of letters patent: No. 19,490, granted to Frederic Cook, March 2, 1858, for an ‘improvement 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 ‘enchancment 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 ‘enchancment in iron ties for cotton-bales,’ and extended for seven years from January 29, 1875. They are severally recognized as the Cook, the Brodie, and the McComb patents.

There may be nothing no matter in the drawings to show that the patentee claimed to be the inventor of that part, separate from the mix, as a distinct novelty, useful by itself, or in every other mixture; neithe is it so described in the specification. All that can be stated in respect to the drawings is that they show the pitman-spring device as a part of the bolt meant to be covered by the patent, and described as a mixture of which that system types a component. That is an enchantment from a decree dismissing a invoice in fairness for the infringement of letters patent granted to the plaintiff January 22, 1884, for ‘improvements in lead-holders for pencils,’ which (omitting the drawings and the reason of them) absolutely reveals the invention claimed, and the type of lead-holders or lead-tubes beforehand in use, and known to the patentee, as follows: ‘The article of my current invention is to hold the lead or crayon in pencils from slipping back within the tube when presesed upon by the tube when pressed upon by the lead. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a swimsuit in fairness from a decree dismissing the invoice of complaint.