~ PARKER & WHIPPLE C0. U. YALE CLOCK ¤0• 43
and compact in outline, were patentable, that is not what the pat·
ontee claims; and there seems to be no doubt that, assuming ashas »
just been stated, that the wrapper, folded in the way described over
the sticks of candy, is an essential part of_ the claims, the defendants
do not infringe. Where a combination is claimed, it is a familiar
principle that all the parts of the combination must be used by the g ·
defendant in order to constitute an infringement. C
The bill must be dismissed.
Pumas & Wmrrnm Co. and another v. Yum Cnoox Co. and others} _
(0£o·cui¢ Court, D. Oonncclieut. October 2, 1883.)
Parnivrs ron Invmxrxons-Rnrssom No. 10.162-Homuxrss CLOCK—LANE Cnoox. y
The first eight claims of reissued patent N0. 10,162, issued March 14, 1882, to
Arthur E. Hotchkiss, for improvements in clock movements, and which de- ,
scribes an invention of which no trace is to be found in the original specifica-
tion,- and manifestly other and different from that which was the subject of
the original patent, are void. _
In Equity.
John S. Beach, Chas.   Jllifchcll, and John K. Beach, for plaintiffs.
Benj. F. Thurston, Chas. R. Ingersoll, and S. H. Wagizer, for de-
fendants. ` .
Snrrmm, J. This is a bill in equity to restrain the defendants from
the infringement of reissued letters patent No. 10,162, issued March
14, 1882, to Arthur E. Hotchkiss, for improvements in clock move-
ments. The original patent was dated November 4, 1879. The ap-
plication for the first reissue, No. 9,656, granted to said Hotchkiss
April 12, 1881, was filed in the patent-oiiice January ,22, 1881. The
application for the present reissue, No. 10,162, was nled July 19, ,
1881. The Parker &.Whipp1e Company are exclusive licensees under
the original and reissued patents. At the date of the invention ex-
pensive clocks of tiny size were being made, which met with favor
from the public. They were convenient and attractive, and the main
object of the patentee (the original specification says a leading object)
was to make a good time-keeping clock of the like small size, which
could be furnished to the public at the small price which charac-
terizes the manufacture of Connecticut clocks. The clock was de-
vised for this end, unquestionably with much study and painstak-
ing, and I shall assume that the invention as claimed in the reissue
was both novel and patentable. Much skill and ingenuity have been
displayed in attacking and defending these contested points, but as I
think that a vital point of the plaintiffs, case depends upon the valid-
ity of the reissue, I shallconfine myself to that question.
·Amrmed. See 8 Sup. Ct. RBD- 38-