Flower v. Detroit

Citations

• 127 U.S. 563
• 8 S. Ct. 1291
• 32 L. Ed. 175
• 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2019

Syllabus

<p>Claim 1 of reissued letters patent No. 6990, granted March 14, 1876, to ThomasR. Bailey, Jr., for an “ improvement in hydrants,” namely, “ In combination with a hydrant or fire-plug, a detached' and surrounding casing C, said casing adapted to have an independent up and down motion sufficient to receive the entire movement imparted by the upheaval of the surrounding earth by freezing, without derangement or disturbance of the hydrant or plug proper, substantially as shown,” is invalid, as being an unlawful expansion of the original patent.</p> <p>The drawing of the original patent was materially altered, and new matter was introduced into the specification of the reissue.</p> <p>The decision in Parker & Whipple Go.y. Tale Clock Go., 123 U. S, 87, applied to this case.</p> <p>In the present case the reissue was not applied for until nearly eight years after the original patent was granted, and the reissue was taken with the manifest intention of covering, by an enlarged claim, structures which in the meantime had gone into extensive public use, and which were not covered by any claim of the original patent.</p> <p>Claim 3 of the reissue, namely, “ The combination of the hydrant or fireplug pipe A, supply pipe B, valve D, casing C, and stuffing-box H, substantially as and for the purpose shown,” is either an unlawful expansion, in regard to the casing, of what is found in the original patent, or, if construed narrowly, in regard to the casing, is anticipated, on the question of novelty.</p>