original rather than appellate,1 and does not suspend the action of the Patent Office.2 19. Issue of Patents.-Patents are issued under the seal of the Patent Office, and shall be signed by the Secretary of the Interior, countersigned by the Commissioner of Patents, and recorded in the Patent Office.4 20. Disclaimer. (a) WHAT CAN BE DISCLAIMED.-A disclaimer can only be filed when the invention that remains after the filing of the disclaimer is a material part of the thing patented5. It cannot be used to reform the description in the specification, or change the invention. (b) DISCLAIMER GENERALLY.-Whenever, through inadvert against the Commissioner. Kirk v. Commissioner, 5 Mackey (U. S.) 229; s. c., 37 Pat. Off. Gaz. 451. Laches. The court may inquire into any delay in the prosecution of application in suing to obtain the patent. Gandy v. Marble, 122 U. S. 432; s. c., 39 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1423. 1. Whipple v. Miner, 15 Fed. Rep. 117; s. c., 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 2236. New Evidence.-New evidence may be introduced. Ex parte Squire, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 133; s. c., 12 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1025. The suit may be decided on any issue. Butler v. Shaw, 21 Fed. Rep. 321. 2. Whipple v. Miner, 15 Fed. Rep. 117; s. c., 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 2236. Parties Plaintiff.-Ordinarily the applicant. U. S. Rev. Stats., § 4915. Where an assignment has been made it would seem that the assignees are the proper parties. Runstetler v. Atkinson, 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 940. 3. A patent issued without the signature of the Secretary of the Interior is void, and a subsequent signing will not make it valid from its issue, and it cannot be signed by a secretary whose term of office has expired. Marsh v. Nichols, 15 Fed. Rep. 914; S. c., 24 Pat.Off. Gaz. 901. And any alteration made in the patent after his signature, must be communicated to him and receive his sanction. Woodworth v. Hall, 1 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 389; s. C., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 517. It may now be countersigned by the Assistant Secretary. 25 Stats. at Large, ch. 15, p. 40. 4. U. S. Rev. Stats., § 4883. 5. U. S. Rev. Stats., § 4917; Root v. Welch Mfg. Co., 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) 478; s. c., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 189; S. C., 4 Fed. Rep. 423; Vance v. Camp bell, 1 Black (U. S.) 427; Hall v. Wiles, 2 Blatchf. (U. S.) 194. It can be used to disclaim one or more of a number of claims, leaving the remainder to stand. McCormick v. Seymour, 3 Blatchf. (U. S.) 209; Tuck v. Bramhill, 6 Blatchf. (U. S.) 95; s. c., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 400; Taylor v. Archer, 8 Blatchf. (U. S.) 315; s. c., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 449. Or a claim in a re-issue unlawfully broadened from the original patent. Tyler v. Galloway, 12 Fed. Rep. 567; s. c., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 2072. Or part of a claim. Schillinger v. Gunther, 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) 66; s. c., 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 479; s. c., 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 905. The claim disclaimed may be invalid for various reasons; the right to disclaim is not limited to a claim invalid from want of novelty in the subject matter. O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. (U. S.) 62. A disclaimer cannot be used to disclaim one of the elements of a combination. Vance v. Campbell, 1 Black (U. S.) 427. 6. Hailes v. Albany Stove Co., 16 Fed. Rep. 240. A patentee can eliminate a portion of his specification describing an invention disclaimed. Schillinger v. Gunther, 17 Blatchf. (U .S.) 66; s. c., 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 479; s. c., 16 Pat. Off. Gaz.905. For instance, he may limit his invention to "a rubber eraser having the soft finished erasive surface produced by tumbling the eraser." Lockwood v. Hooper, 25 Fed. Rep. 910. 7. It cannot enlarge the scope of a patent. White v. Gleason etc. Mfg. Co., 24 Pat. Off. Gaz. 205. Nor change the patent from a patent for a product to one for a process. Grant v. Walter, 38 Fed. Rep. 594. ence, accident or mistake, and without any fraudulent or deceptive intention, a patentee has claimed more than that of which he is the first inventor or discoverer,2 a disclaimer can be made to such portions as are not desired to be claimed or held by virtue of the patent or assignment.3 6 (c) BY WHOM MADE.-A disclaimer can be made by the inventor, assignees or legal representative, and the extent of the interest of the person disclaiming should be stated in the disclaimer. (d) TIME WITHIN WHICH DISCLAIMER MUST BE MADE.-A disclaimer may be made at any time, even after suit is brought,8 provided the delay has not been unreasonable.9 An unreasonable delay, however, cuts off all rights of action.10 1. It is immaterial whether the mistake be one of law or of fact. Wyeth v. Stone, 1 Story (U. S.) 273; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 23. 2. The purpose of the disclaimer is to eliminate all claims for inventions not new with the patentee, and all claims for things which were not inventions with them. Walker on Pat ents, § 197; United States Cartridge Co. v. Union etc. Cartridge Co., 112 U. S. 642. 3. U. S. Rev. Stat. § 4917. Hartes v. Albany Stove Co., 123 U. S. 588. It applied to patents granted before its adoption. Hotchkiss v. Oliver, 5 Den. (N. Y.) 314. The provision applies to re-issues. Tyler v. Galloway, 12 Fed. Rep. 567; S. C., 22 Pat. Off. Ġaz. 2072. And to extensions. Brooks v. Jenkins, 3 McLean (U. S.) 432. 4. U. S. Rev. Stat. § 4917. Silsby v. Foote, 14 How. (U. S.) 218. 5. Wyeth v. Stone, 1 Story (U. S.) 273; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 23. An assignee must join with the inventor; otherwise he will not receive the benefit of the disclaimer. This is so, even though he be an assignee subsequent to the grant or issuance of the patent. Wyeth v. Stone, I Story (U. S.) 273; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 23; Rice v. Garnhardt, 34 Wis. 453; Myers v. Frame, 8 Blatchf. (U. S.) 446; s. c., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 493. 6. Brooks v. S.) 432. 7. U. S. Rev. Stats., § 4917. Brooks v. Jenkins, 3 McLean (U. S.) 432. Jenkins, 3 McLean (U. But a statement merely that the disclaimer is the patentee, is sufficient. Silsby v. Foote, 14 How. (U. S.) 221. 8. Smith v. Nichols, 1 Holmes (U.S.) 172; s. c., 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 61; s. c., 2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 649; Silsby v. Foote, 20 How. (U. S.) 378; Seymour v. McCormick, 19 How. (U. S.) 96; Tuck v. Bramhill, 6 Blatchf. (U. S.) 95; Gage v. Herring, 14 Blatchf. (U. S.) 293; s. c., 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 2119; Hill v. Biddle, 27 Fed. Rep. 561. 9. U. S. Rev. Stats., §§ 4917, 4922; McCormick v. Seymour, 3 Blatchf. (U. S.) 209. What is an unreasonable delay, has been held to be a question of law. Singer v. Walmsley, I Fish. Pat. Cas. 558; Seymour v. McCormick, 19 How. (U. S.) 96. And a mixed question of law and fact. Brooks v. Jenkins, 3 McLean (U. S.) 432; Washburne v. Gould, 3 Story (U. S.) 122; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 206; Lippincott v. Kelly, 1 West. L. J. 513. Delay is counted from the time that knowledge is brought to the patentee that he was not the first inventor. Singer v. Walmsley, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 558. A claim which has been held valid by a circuit court need not be disclaimed until declared invalid by the highest court. O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. (U. S.) 62. Nor until the court has passed on the claims. Stutz v. Armstrong, 20 Fed. Rep. 843; Seymour v._McCormick, 19 How. (U. S.) 96; Patter v. Whitney, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 77; Tuck v. Bramhill, 6 Blatchf. (U. S.) 95. A patentee, some of whose claims were declared invalid just as the patent was about to expire, may recover on the valid claims. Kittle v. Hall, 30 Fed. Rep. 239. Or has expired. Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Sargent, 117 U. S. 553. 10. Brooks v. Jenkins, 3 McLean (U. (e) EFFECT OF DISCLAIMER.-The effect of a disclaimer on a patent is to place it in the position of never having contained the matter disclaimed. No costs are recoverable unless proper disclaimer has been filed before the commencement of the suit.2 21. Reissue (a) WHEN PATENT CAN BE SURRENDERED.— When a patent is inoperative3 or invalid4 by reason of a defective or insufficient specification, or by reason of the patentee claiming S.) 432; Hall v. Wiles, 2 Blatchf. (U. S.) 194; Winans v. New York etc. R. Co., 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 213. 1. Dunbar v. Myers, 94 U. S. 187; s. c., 11 Pat. Off. Gaz. 35. It only affects those by whom it is made. Wyeth v. Stone, 1 Story (U. S.) 273. 2. U. S. Rev. Stats., § 4922. Reed v. Cutter, I Story (U. S.) 591; Burdett v. Estey, 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 308; Proctor v. Bull, 16 Fed. Rep. 791; Smith v. Nichols, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 117. But a defendant will not be permitted to attack claims not in suit, to avoid costs, American Bell Teleph. Co. v. Spencer, 8 Fed. Rep. 512. 3. Giant Powder Co. v. California etc. Power Co., 4 Fed. Rep. 720. Inoperative does not mean "not fully available" to the owner of the patent. Burr v. Duryee, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 531; Whitely v. Swayne, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 117; Poage v. McGowan, 15 Fed. Rep. 398. A want of proper description is a good cause to reissue a patent. Sewing Mach. Co. v. Frame, 24 Fed. Rep. 596. That it is "not fully valid and available," however, will authorize a reissue. Gold & Stock Tel. Co. v. Wiley, 17 Fed. Rep. 234. "Not fully operative" is not enough. Hartshorn v. Eagle Shade Roller Co., 18 Fed. Rep. 90. The defect, to cure which a reissue is taken, need not completely vitiate the original. Stimpson v. Westchester R. Co., 4 How. (U. S.) 380. 4. Union Paper Collar Co. v. Van Dusen, 23 Wall. (U.S.) 530; s. c., 7 Pat. Off. Gaz. 919. Vogler v. Semple, 7 Biss. (U. S.) 382; s. c., 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 556; s. c., 11 Pat. Off. Gaz. 923. A patent invalid because too broad, may be corrected by reissue. Matthews v. Flower, 25 Fed. Rep. 830. Mistakes That May be Corrected by Beissue. Mis-statement of date of prior foreign patent. Buerk v. Valentine, 9 Blatchf. (U. S.) 479; s. c., 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 366; s. c., 2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 295. Clerical Errors.-Clerical errors may or may not be altered in other ways. French v. Rogers, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 133; Morris v. Huntington, 1 Paine (U. S.) 348; s. c., I Robb Pat. Cas. 448; Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 218; s. c., 1 Robb Pat. Cas. 604; Woodworth v. Hall, Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 248; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 495; Goodyear Den tal etc. Co. v. Weatherbee, 2 Cliff. (U. S.) 555; s. c., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 87. A mistake in fixing the date of a patent so that it did not conform to the term of a foreign patent, may be corrected by a reissue. Buerk v. Valentine, 9 Blatchf. (U. S.) 479; s. c., 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 366; s. c., 2 Pat. Office Gaz. 295. 5. The patent need not be void; it is enough that the specification is defective or doubtful in some particulars. Woodworth v. Hall, 1 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 248; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 495; Parham v. American Button etc. Mach. Co., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 468. But the specification must be defective. Coon v. Wilson, 113 U. S. 268. What Word "Specification" Includes. -Specification includes claim; consequently a claim which does not describe fully the extent of the invention may enable the patent to be surrendered and reissued, and the claim enlarged or altered to cover the invention. Carver v. Braintree Mfg. Co., 2 Story (U. S.) 432; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 141; Goodyear v. Providence Rubber Co., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 499; Morey v. Lockwood, 8 Wall (U. S.) 230; Worswick Mfg. Co. v. Steiger, 17 Fed. Rep. 531; Battin v. Taggert, 17 How. (U. S.) 74; _Crompton v. Belknap Mills, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 536; French v. Rogers, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 133. No Right to Reissue. Where the specification is neither defective nor insufficient, there exists no right to reissue. Coon v. Wilson, 113 U. S. 268; Brewster v. Shuler, 37 Fed. Rep. 785; Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354; Dunham v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 40 Fed. Rep. 667. A reissue of an original patent in two reissues is not void because one of the more than he had the right to claim,1 if the error has arisen by inadvertence, accident or mistake,2 and without any fraudulent or deceptive intention, the patent may be surrendered and a reissue taken. The provisions for reissue apply as well to a former re-issue or to an extended as to an original patent. (6) SURRENDER.-A surrender of a patent for the purpose of reissue is made by the party having the legal title thereto; though reissues is identical with the original. International Terra Cotta Lumber Co. v. Maurer, 44 Fed. Rep. 618. 1. Gould v. Ballard, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 324; Chicago Fruit House Co. v. Busch, 2 Biss. (U. S.) 472; Albright v. Celluloid etc. Trimming Co., 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 629; s. c., 12 Pat. Off. Gaz. 227; Carver v. Braintree Mfg. Co., 2 Story (U. S.) 432; s. C., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 141; Coburn v. Schroeder, 19 Blatchf. (U. S.) 377; s. c., 8 Fed. Rep. 519; s. c., 20 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1524. Even where the original patent is too broad, and, hence, invalid, the mistake may be corrected by a reissue. Mathews v. Flower, 25 Fed. Rep. 830. 2. Mistake not an error of judgment. Swain etc. Mfg. Co. v. Ladd, 102 U. S. 409; s. c., 19 Pat. Off. Gaz. 62; Jones v. Barker, 11 Fed. Rep. 597; s. c., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 771. How or when mistake is discovered, is unimportant. Poppenhusen v. Falke, 5 Blatchf. (U. S.) 493; s. c., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 181; Buffum v. Oakland Mfg. Co., 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 599. The right to reissue exists in cases of defective description, or error arising from inadvertence or mistake. Knight v. Baltimore Co., 1 Taney (U. S.) 106. The United States statute conferring jurisdiction on the Commissioner of Patents to re-issue any patent invalid by reason of a defective or insufficient specification arising from inadvertence, accident, or mistake, and without any fraudulent or deceptive intention, authorizes the insertion of new claims founded on the original invention, as exhibited by the specifications or drawings where the claimant uses due diligence in applying for the correction; but the laches of the patentee may estop him. Combined Patents Can Co. v. Lloyd, 11 Fed. Rep. 149. Where by an application for a reissue of a patent it is thought merely to enlarge a claim, a clear mistake and inadvertence must be shown and a speedy application for its correction, without reasonable delay, must be made. Wooster v. Handy, 21 Fed. Rep. 51. Distinguished in Wooster v. Thornton, 26 Fed. Rep. 275. 3. A fraud, especially corrupt collusion between the Commissioner and applicant, invalidates the reissued patent. Swift v. Whisen, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343; s. c., 2 Bond (U. S.) 115; House v. Young, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 335; Conklin v. Stafford, 1 McArthur (U. S.) 375. The evidence must be clear. Jordan v. Dobson, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 398. 4. U. S. Rev. Stats. § 4916. 5. Selden v. Stockwell etc. Gas Burner Co., 9 Fed. Rep. 390; 19 Blatchf. (U. S.) 444; s. c., 20 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1377; Morse v. Bain, 9 West. L. J. 106. Invalid Reissue Can be Reissued.Even an invalid reissue can be reissued. American etc. Boring Co. v. Sullivan Mach. Co., 14 Blatchf. (U.S.) 119; s. c., 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 522; American etc. Boring Co. v. Sheldon, 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) 208; s. c., 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 551. The rule is that a substitute (a reissue) having all the qualities of an original, the right to amend it is equal with the right to amend the original. French v. Rogers, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 133. A reissue which has been unlawfully broadened may be re-issued with the original claims and specification. This precludes the idea that the original patent was invalid. Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Zylonite Brush Co., 27 Fed. Rep. 291; Giant Powder Co. v. Safety Nitro Powder Co., 19 Fed. Rep. 509; Hubel v. Dick, 28 Fed. Rep. 132; Sawyer Spindle Co. v. Eureka Spindle Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 836. A claim which is too broad may be disclaimed, as in an original patent. Torrant v. Duluth Lumber Co., 30 Fed. Rep. 830. 6. Gibson v. Harris, 1 Blatchf. (U. S.) 167; Wilson v. Rousseau, 4 How. (U. S.) 646; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 373; Hussey v. Bradley, 5 Blatchf. (U. S.) 134; S. C., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 362. 7. "Patentee, or, in case of his death or of an assignment of the whole or any undivided part of the original patent a reissue granted after a surrender by another and its ratification by the legal owner is valid as to third parties.1 The surrender takes effect at the date of issue of the reissued patent. It may be then to his executors, administrators or assigns." U. S. Rev. Stats., § 4916; Potter v. Holland, 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 206; s. c., I Fish. Pat. Cas. 327; Smith v. Mercer, 5 Pa. L. J. 529. A patent may be surrendered by an assignee whose title has passed through mesne assignments. Swift v. Whisen, 2 Bond (U.S.) 115; s. c., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343. an Need Not Join Grantee.-A grantee of an exclusive territory is not such assignee as must join in the surrender. Meyer v. Bailey, 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 73; s. c., 8 Pat. Off. Gaz. 437; Smith v. Mercer, 5 Pa. L. J. 529. The grantee apparently may elect to hold either under the old patent or the reissue. Potter v. Holland, 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 206; s. c., 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 327; Woodworth v. Stone, 3 Story (U. S.) 749; s. c., 2-Robb Pat. Čas. 296; Washburne v. Gould, 3 Story (U. S.) 122; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 206; McBurney v. Goodyear, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 569. Licensee.-A licensee who has no legal title in the patent. Potter v. Holland, 4 Blatchf. (U.S.) 206; s. c., 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 327; Forbes v. Barstow Stove Co., 2 Cliff. (U. S.) 379. Patentee. After having assigned his patent, a patentee. Swift v. Whisen, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 343; s. c., 2 Bond (U.S.) 115. Assignees of an undivided moiety must join; if not, the reissued patent will be invalid unless the non-joining_owner ratifies. Potter v. Holland, 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 206; s. c., I Fish. Pat. Cas. 382. Executors and Administrators.—An executor may surrender the patent and obtain the reissue. Carew v. Boston Elastic Fabric Co., 1 Holmes (U. S.) 45; s. c., 3 Cliff. (U. S.) 356; s. c., 5 Fish. Pat. Čas. 90; s. c., 1 Pat. Off. Gaz. 91. Or an administrator. Woodworth v. Hall, I Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 248; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 495. Any one of the several personal representatives may surrender and receive a valid grant of a reissue to himself in his fiduciary capacity. Goodyear Rubber Co. v. Providence Rubber Co., 2 Cliff. (U.S.) 351; s. c., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 499. Reissue, an Evidence of Title.-The grant of a reissue is evidence that the grantee had the title to the patent. Northwestern Fire Extinguisher Co. v. Philadelphia Fire Extinguisher Co., I Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 177; s. c., 6 Pat. Off. Gaz. 34; Woodworth v. Hall, 1 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 248; Goodyear v. Hullihen, 2 Hughes (U. S.) 492; s. c., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 251. A recital of a prior assignment of a patent is at least prima facie evidence thereof. Middletown Co. v. Judd, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 141; Hoffheins Brandt, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 218. v. Verbal Errors.-A verbal error in the reissue will not invalidate. Bignall v. Harvey, 18 Blatchf. (U. S.) 352; s. C., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 636; s. c., 4 Fed. Rep. 334; s. c., 18 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1275; Woodworth v. Stone, 3 Story (U. S.) 749; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Čas. 296. 1. Wing v. Warren, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 548; s. c., 2_Pat. Off. Gaz. 342; Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Weatherbee, 2 Cliff. (U. S.) 555; Woodworth v. Stone, 3 Story (U. S.) 749; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 296; Meyer v. Bailey, 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 73; s. c., 8 Pat. Off. Gaz. 437; Campbell v. James, 17 Blatchf. (U.S.) 43; s. c., 4_Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 456; s. c., 18 Pat. Off. Gaz. 979. A patentee cannot, however, affect the interest of his assignee by sur rendering his patent. Barnes v. Morgan, 3 Hun (N. Y.) 703. 2. U. S. Rev. Stats., § 4916. Prior to the issuing of the new patent, what is called a surrender in the case, is, in general, nothing_more than a preliminary offer to that effect, as the necessary means of obtaining a reissue; and even when not so intended at the outset, it may be subsequently so treated by the Commissioner, at the request of the party applying for the reissue. Forbes v. Barstow Stove Co., 2 Cliff. (U. S.) 379. If a reissue is invalid for want of authority to make it a surrender, it is ineffective for want of authority to receive it; and the patent stands as if there had been no surrender. French v. Rogers, I Fish. Pat. Cas. 133; Woodworth v. Hall, 1 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 389; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 517; Woodworth v. Edwards, 3 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 120; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 610. Where, however, the title to an invention is in dispute upon the application for a reissue and adjudged against the applicant, the effect of such de |