52 FEDERAL nsromnn.
8.'SAME—DEATH or- Invmnron-Errnor on Rmssos: or- PATENT—ASSIGNEE—
Rronrs or-Rav. Sr. § 4895.
After the death of the inventor, a reissue of the patent may be obtained upon
application made, and a corrected specification signed by the assignee, under
Rev. St. $4895.
In Equity.
Frederic H. Betts, for plaintiff. ,
Benjamin F. Lee, John Dane, Jr., and William. H. L. Lee, for de-
fendant.
Bnxrosrosn, Justice. This suit is brought on two reissued pat-
ents. One is reissue No. 6,565, granted to George H. Wooster, July
27, 1875, (on an application for a reissue filed June 22, 1875,) for . »
an "irnprovement in machines for making 1`llm6S,’, the original pat-
ent, No. 37,550, having been granted to Pipo and Sherwood, Janu-
ary 27, 1868, on the invention of John A. Pipo. The other is reis·
sue No. 6,566, granted to George H. Wooster, July 27, 1875, (on an
application for a reissue filed July 19, 1875,) for an "improvement
in sewing-machines for making band—ru1iiing," the original patent,
No. 46,424, having been granted to E. C. Wooster, February 14, 1865,
on the invention of Thomas Robjohn. The case was brought to a
hearing on pleadings and proofs, and a decision was rendered in April,
1881, (Wooster v. Blake, 8 FED. Rss. 429,) in favor of the plaintiffs,
on both patents, on which an interlocutory decree was entered, April
30, 1881. The decree adjudged that No. 6,565 was valid so far as
claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 were concerned; that those claims had been
infringed; and that an account of profits and damages should be
taken as to such infringement. It stated that, as No. 6,565 had ex-
pired by its own limitation, no injunction was granted in reference to
itL The decree also adjudged that No. 6,566 was valid so far as
claims 8 and 9 were concerned; that those claims had been infringed;
that an account of profits and damages should be taken as to such in-
fringement; and that a perpetual injunction should issue as to said
claims. . The decree further said: "No adjudication is herein made
as to any other claims than those above mentioned, of either of said
letters patent, in any respect;" and it reserved the question of costs,
andiof increase of damages, and all furtherquestions, until the mas-
ter’s report should come in. _ _ V f , ` v_;
The _defcndant’s rufflers involved, and held, by the decision, to in-
fringe both patents, were known as the Johnston ruiiier and the Toof
rufder, and were sold to be attached to sewing-machines, for ruffiing
purposes. In regard tothe Pipo patent, No. 6,565, the decision icon-
sidered several patents and inventions set up on the question of nov-
elty,-and held`?that.they could not avail. On the defense-of the in-
validity of the reissue, as notfor the same invention' as the original, .
the decision said: "There is no evidence that anything is found in
the reissue No. 6,565, which is not to be found in the “descripti_on or
drawing ofthe original patent, or inthe model a`ccompariying`the ap-
 ’