36 _ FEDERAL nmronrmn.
he deliberately intended to limit himself in the application which was
acted on to a narrower claim than he was entitled to make. c
The case is one where the patentee applied for a reissue within 11
months from the date of his original patent, in order to correct a claim
which might not fully secure his invention, and which was certainly
so ambiguous as to suggest a doubt whether it was suiiicient or not.
It is not a case where the suggestion of inadvertence or mistake was
a mere pretense of the patentee, or one where the mistake was so ob·
vious as to be instantly discernible upon reading the claim. So far
from being apparent upon the first inspection of the patent, there is
room forgrave doubt now whether it was not sutiicient. The pat-
entee was justified in moving cautiously and saving himself unneces-
sary expense. The granting of the reissue, so far frombeing an abuse
of the power conferred upon the commissioner, was a just and equita-
ble exercise of his authority. The patentee was not guilty of laches;
his application was made within a reasonable time; and the reissue,
so far atleast as it relates to the second claim, was a legitimate and
commendable exercise by the commissioner of the duty devolved upon
him by statute.
Although, as to the claim in controversy, the second reissue must
be held valid, that reissue in the form of three divisions, containing
nine claims in all, was entirely unnecessary. The rights of the com-
plainant were fully protected by the first reissue; the second must
have been obtained upon the theory that the patent might be useful
as a weapon of odense by means of claims so comprehensive and
elastic as to embrace within their scope all subsequent inventions
which might be made in the same field of improvement. Interme-
diate the time of the Hrst reissue and the application for the second
reissue, patents for cognate inventions were obtained by Thompson
and Selden, (September, 1879,) by F. W. Jones, (March, 1880,) and
° by Gerrit Smith, (March, 1881.) The reissue in suit was apparently
designed to overreach these patents and subordinate them to the
complainants' monopoly. The reissue is not to be criticised because
the claims of the several divisions cover the invention of Stearns, in
the broadest form and in the narrowest form in which it is capable
of use; but because it is upon its face a flagrant attempt to enlarge
the scope of the invention in order that the patent might be more r
available for the suppression of all competing inventions. It is well
calculated to mislead the public into the belief that the complainant
enjoys practically the exclusive control of duplex and quadruplex tel-
egraphy as used over long lines. A party seeking the assistance of
a court of equity to protect such a patent appeals to the court to be
astute to discover a legal right, which has not been subverted, in the
unjustifiable attempt to encroaeh upon the rights of others. A com-
plainant asking the protection of such a patent does not occupy an at-
titude which is commendable in the view of a court of equity. If the
essential motive of those who represented the complainant in obtain-