PARKER & WHIPPLE oo. v. umu 0L0c!: 00. 45
and their position, might have been understood by an expert from
drawing No. 6. That drawing was not made for the purpose of
showing the wheels, and it is manifest from the specification that*
the patentee did not suppose they had anything to do with his iu-
vention, which he did suppose lay in entirely other parts of the clock.
The model showed a completed clock, and contained whatever was
and was not invented by Hotchkiss.
In the specification of the second reissue, the patentee omitted the
entire description, which has been quoted and inserted in the follow-
ing:
*‘ My invention relates to an improvement in clock movements, the object be-
ing to make a clock movement which shall be simple and durable in its con-
struction, of small initial cost in manufacture, and the several parts of which
shall be relatively arranged in such manner that the movement may be in-
closed in a small and compact case. To this end the invention consists in di- __
viding the train into two parts; in arranging the divisions of the train in a
frame having three plates; in providing an additional wheel and pinion be-
tween the escape wheel and center wheel; in making the three wheels between
the escape wheel and center wheel with the same number of teeth and of the
same size; in arranging the pivots of the three arbors carrying the three like
wheels and pinions between the escape wheel and center wheel in the circum-
ference of circles which are concentric with the center arbor; and in other
minor improvements as the invention is hereinafter more fully described and
explained by reference to the drawings."
In accordance with this statement the plaintiffs experts claimed
. upon the trial that the invention consisted generally in the division
of the train into two parts by means of a frame having three plates,
A the point of division being between the center wheel and the center
, pinion; and, secondly, in the arrangement, between the center wheel
and the escape wheel, of three wheels which are driven bythe center
wheel in the circumference of a circle which is concentric to the cen-
ter arbor, the three wheels being arranged on a semi-circle concentric f
to the center pinion. This general outline of the invention is stated
with accuracy and completeness in eight claims of the reissue, four
i of which relate to the division of the train into two parts ina frame
having three plates, while the other four relate to thearrangement
of the three wheels. The tenth and eleventh claims relate to details
which were specified in the original patent, but which are not used ,
by the defendant. The defendants infringe the first eight claims.
The position of the plaintids is that the invention of the reissue
was the invention of Hotchkiss, and was shown in the model accom-
panying the original application for a patent, and that, therefore, the
description in the reissue is not to be regarded as new matter, but as r
a correction of a misstatement_in the description contained in the
original specication. ·
The defendants making no point in regard to laches in applying
for a correction of the original patent, deny the plaintiffs' premise and
conclusion. They deny the premise because they say that the orig-