42 sans2n.. anromnu.
Femmes' Furuno MANUF,G Cc. v. CHALLENGE Conn-Pmnrmn Co.
(Circuit Court, W. D. Mz'chz'gan, S. D. January 16, 1885.)
Ps·1·nN·rs son LNVENTIONB—RElSSUE No. 10,155~ConN-Pnmrmu.
Reissued letters patent No. 10,155, issued to the Farmers' Friend Manufact-
uring Company as assignee of Michael Runstetler, on July 11, 1882, is not for
~ the same invention covered by the original letters, and is invalid.
In Equity.
Wood it Boyd and E. W. Withey, for complainant.
Stem. et Peck and Edward Taggart, for defendant.
Bsxcrniz, J. This is a bill to enjoin an alleged infringement of re·
issued letters patent No. 10,155, issued to the complainant, as as-
signee of Michael Bunstetler, on July 11, 1882. We have not the
time to enter upon a full discussion of the facts ofthe case, and hence
will content ourselves with a simple announcement of the conclusion
to which we have arrived on one question made and relied on by the
defendant.
In a former suit, prosecuted by the complainant in this court against
the Waite Manufacturing Company, for an alleged infringement of
the same reissued letters patent, we rendered a decree in complain—
ant’s favor, affirming their validity, and ordered an account of the
damages. This, of course, would be conclusive of this case on that
point if the facts of the two cases were the same; but the defendant
did not introduce in the former case any testimony in support of its
defenses. The decree made therein was predicated upon the prima
facie case made by the production of complainants said reissued let-
ters patent and proof of the alleged infringement; but here the de-
fendant comes with full proof. Among other testimony, it has put
` in evidence a copy of the original letters patent, and insists that upon
comparison thereof with the reissued letters patent it will appear that
the latter is not for the same invention covered by the former.
The first claim of the original patent is in these words:
(1) Ina corn-planter having the rear main frame mounted on supporting
wheels. the front runner-frame hinged or pivoted to the main frame, and op-
- erated by an elevating and depressinglever pivoted to the main frame, having
its front end slotted and connected to the runner-frame by a bolt passing
through said slot, in combination with the shaft, A, and lifting hand-lever,
D, rigidly attached to said shaft, for elevating, depressing, and controlling
the runner—frame, substantially as herein set forth.
A reissue was applied for and obtained, in which the foregoing
claim was expanded into the four following claims:
(1) In a corn-planter having the rear main frame mounted on supporting
wheels and the front runner-frame hinged or pivoted to the main frame, the
combination of a foot-treadle and a. hand-lever adapted to be used in conjunc·
tion or independently for the purpose of elevating or depressing the runners,
substantially as herein set forth. (2) In a corn-planter having the rear main
frame mounted on supporting wheels and the front runner-frame hinged or