Eames v. Andrews

Citations

• 122 U.S. 40
• 7 S. Ct. 1073
• 30 L. Ed. 1064
• 1887 U.S. LEXIS 2087

Syllabus

<p>The reissued letters-patent, No. 4372, issued to Nelson W. Green, May 9, 1871, for an improved method of constructing artesian wells, are for the process of drawing water from the earth by means of a well driven in the manner described in the patent, and are for the same invention described and claimed in the original letters-patent issued to Green, January 14, 1868. It is a reasonable inference from the language employed in the original description that the tube, in the act of being driven into the earth to and into a water-bearing stratum, would form an airtight connection with the surrounding earth, and that the pump should be attached to it by an air-tight connection. The changes made in the amended specification did not enlarge the scope of the patent, or describe a different invention; but only supplied a deficiency in the original description! by describing with more particularity and exactness the means to be employed to produce the desired result. The omission in the second claim of the words, “where no rock is to be penetrated,” which are found in the first claim, did not change the obvious meaning of the original claim.</p> <p>The reissued letters-patent, No. 4372, to Nelson W. Green, were not for the same subject as the letters-patent issued to James Suggett, March 29, 1864; or those issued to John Goode in England in 1823; nor was the in-, vention patented in them anticipated in any publication referred to in the opinion of the court within the rule as to previous publications laid down in Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516; Cohn v. United States Corset Co., 93 U. S. 366; and Dovmton v. Yeager Milling Co., 108 U. S. 466.</p> <p>The evidence shows a clear case of infringement on the part of the defendant in error.</p>