Opinion of the Court.

'cast solid with the same, if desired." This is new matter, as is also the addition, in the specification of the reissue, that, in the drawing, the plate C is shown above the slag-discharge piece or cinder block, but that it may also be placed below, or in any other desirable position in relation to the same. So, also, it is added in the specification of the reissue that the invention can be applied to blast furnaces of the common construction "by removing the fore hearth and closing the aperture left in the breast of the furnace under the tymp.stone by inserting the plate C with the cinder block D."

But the material point is the extension of the invention claimed, by the addition of claim 1 of the reissue, the words in which, “substantially as set forth," refer to the new matter in the reissue, that the slag is discharged "through an opening cooled with water in such a manner that the tymp, or fore hearth, and the wall stone can be dispensed with." The intention manifestly was to construe the first claim so as to cover any kind of blast furnace with a closed breast, having a slagdischarge opening cooled in any manner or to any extent by water. There is nothing in the original specification which indicates that any such claim was intended to be made in the original patent. On the contrary, the whole purport of that specification shows that it was intended to claim only a slagdischarge piece or cinder block constructed and attached in a specific manner, as is set forth in the statement of the attorneys of Asmus, accompanying his application for the reissue.

This case was decided in the Circuit Court, May 14, 1886; and both before and since that there have been numerous decisions in this court which require that the present reissue be held invalid, although it was applied for within less than a year after the granting of the original patent. Those cases are Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354; Coon v. Wilson, 113 U. S. 268; Ives v. Sargent, 119 U. S. 652; Parker & Whipple Co. v. Yale Clock Co., 123 U. S. 87; Matthews v. Ironclad Mfg. Co., 124 U. S. 347; Hoskin v. Fisher, 125 U. S. 217; Flower v. Detroit, 127 U. S. 563; Yale Lock Co. v. Berkshire Bank, 135 U. S. 342; Electric Gas Co. v. Boston Electric Co., 139 U. S. 481.

Opinion of the Court.

In Mahn v. Harwood, a reissue was held invalid, where it was clear that the only object of it was to enlarge the claims of the original patent. The description was not altered in the least. The claims in the original were clear and explicit, one of them being retained substantially in the reissue. Nothing was altered or changed, except to multiply the claims and make them greater, and that was done, not for the benefit of the original patentee, but for that of his assignee.

In Coon v. Wilson, the application for the reissue was made a little more than three months after the granting of the original patent; but it was said that a clear mistake, inadvertently committed, in the wording of the claim, was necessary, without reference to the length of time; that there was no mistake in the wording of the claim of the original; that the description warranted no other claim and did not warrant the claim of the reissue; that the description had to be changed in the reissue to warrant its new claim; and that the description in the reissue was not a more clear and satisfactory statement of what was described in the original, but was a description of a different thing, so ingeniously worded as to cover what was claimed in the reissue.

In Ives v. Sargent, the doctrine of Coon v. Wilson was approved and applied.

The whole subject was reviewed in Parker & Whipple Co. v. Yale Clock Co., and the dicta in the case of Seymour v. 08borne, 11 Wall. 516, were considered; and it was held that what was suggested or indicated in the original specification was not to be considered as a part of the original invention intended to be covered by the original patent, unless it could be seen, from a comparison of the two patents, that the invention which the original was intended to cover emaraced the things thus suggested or indicated in the original specification, and unless the original specification indicated that those things were embraced in the invention intended to have been secured by the original patent. The cases of Mahn v. Har wood and Coon v. Wilson were cited and approved.

The case of Parker & Whipple Co. v. Yale Clock Co. is cited and applied in Matthews v. Ironclad Mfg. Co., in Ioskin v.

Counsel for Appellants.

Fisher, in Yale Lock Co. v. James, 125 U. S. 447, 464, and in Flower v. Detroit.

In Yale Lock Co. v. Berkshire Bank, a reissue was held invalid, although it was applied for only thirteen days after the granting of the original, because there was not a clear mistake, inadvertently committed, in the wording of the claim; and the cases of Coon v. Wilson, Ives v. Sargent and Parker & Whipple Co. v. Yale Clock Co. were cited and applied.

In Electric Gas Co. v. Boston Electric Co., a reissue was held invalid because there was no inadvertence, accident or mistake, such as would authorize a reissue with new claims, and the sole object of the reissue was unlawfully to expand

the claims.

We are of opinion that the present reissue is invalid, so far as the first claim of it is concerned, because it is not for the same invention as the original patent, and is, therefore, within the express exception of the statute, (Act of July 4, 1836, c. 357, § 13, 5 Stat. 122). There is nothing inconsistent with the foregoing views, in our decision in Topliff v. Topliff, ante, 156. The decree of the Circuit Court is reversed, and the case remanded to that court, with a direction to dismiss the bill, with costs.

RYAN v. HARD.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

No. 346. Argued April 28, 1892. - Decided May 16, 1892.

Letters patent No. 241,321, granted May 10, 1881, to Charles H. Dunks and James B. Ryan, for improvements in swing woven-wire bed-bottoms, are invalid for want of patentability; all that was done being to suspend a fabric well known as a bed-bottom in substantially the same manner that other fabrics used for that purpose had been suspended.

THE case is stated in the opinion.

Mr. John B. Gleason for appellants.

VOL. CXLV-16

Opinion of the Court.

Mr. James B. Jenkins for appellees.

MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit in equity, brought April 7, 1887, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York, by James B. Ryan, Francis A. Hall, William R. Cougle and Richard W. Elliott, against Charles H. Hard, John J. Crawford and Henry D. Hard, for an alleged infringement of letters patent No. 241,321, granted May 10, 1881, to Charles H. Dunks and James B. Ryan for improvements in swing woven-wire bed-bottoms. The alleged infringement consisted in the sale by the defendants of woven-wire bed-bottoms, containing the patented improvements. The answer of the defendants set up, among other things, the want of novelty and of patentability. Issue was joined and proofs were taken, and the Circuit Court, held by Judge Coxe, on August 13, 1888, gave an opinion in favor of the defendants, (35 Fed. Rep. 831,) in pursuance of which a decree was entered dismissing the bill.

The specification of the patent says:

"C represents a central section of the ordinary woven-wire fabric in common use in bed-bottoms. This fabric is attached, at either or both ends, to a swinging cross-bar, which, in turn, is suspended from one of the end rails of the bedstead. By preference we construct the swinging bar in two parts-a lower portion, D, formed of wood, to which one end of the woven fabric is secured by means of suitable pins, or otherwise, and an upper portion, D', provided upon its outer edge with a series of holes, d, the upper and lower portions being secured to each other by rivets, bolts or other analogous devices. Thus the upper part may be made to assist in securing the end of the woven fabric, to cover the end of the fabric, and thus protect the mattress from undue wear, and also as a 'means by which to attach the springs E, links or other devices employed to connect said swinging bar with the end rail of the bedstead.

"E E represent a series of spiral springs, each connected at one end to the swinging bar, and at the other end to the end

Opinion of the Court.

rail of the bedstead, preferably by means of an interposed supplemental bar or rail, F, which, in this instance, we have represented as being a metal bar provided with holes upon one edge for the attachment of the springs, and provided, also, upon the other edge with holes, f, adapted to receive pins, by means of which said bar F can be attached, either to the end rail of the bedstead or to a separate rail, G, which, in turn, is secured to the end rail of the bedstead.

"In Fig. 1 we have shown both methods of attaching the bar F to the bedstead, it being attached to the foot-rail B' by means of a series of bolts, hooks or pins, b; and in case pins are inserted in the rail B' for this purpose, we prefer to incline them backward, in order to prevent the bar F from being accidentally detached when in use; or the pins may be provided with heads, the holes in the end rail of the bedstead being inclined inwardly at their lower ends, when the tension of the springs E will keep the form in position.

"When the bar G is employed its ends may be notched to engage with the vertical posts of the bedstead, or with cleats or ribs secured to the inner faces of the posts or of the side rails, as the construction of the bedstead shall indicate as being most convenient; or the end rail of the bedstead may be provided with an inwardly projecting rib having pins or hooks corresponding to those marked b; or hooks may be attached to and project from the inner face of the rail in proper position to receive the bar F.

"Referring to Fig. 4, H HI are the side rails, and I I' the end rails, of a bed-bottom adapted to be applied to a bedstead of any ordinary or approved construction, and rest upon the cleats with which such bedsteads are usually provided for the purpose of supporting a detachable bed-bottom.

"In this construction we prefer to dispense with the supplemental rail G and attach the bars F directly to the end rails, II' in such manner as to be readily detached therefrom, in order to facilitate the rolling up of the spring portions for transportation.

"By an examination of the drawings it will be seen that the cut ends of the woven-wire fabric enter and are secured within