Opinion of the Court.

combination, with the time mechanism and the locking or dogging mechanism, of an independent device adapted to be set to prevent, at any desired time, the unlocking of the lock for a greater period than twenty-four hours, substantially as described.

"10. The combination, substantially as above set forth, of the adjustable mechanism for continuously locking and unlocking daily the time-movements, and a device for preventing unlocking during a greater period than twenty-four hours.

"11. In a time-lock provided with two independent timemovements and an interlocking device common to both, the combination, with each of said movements, of a ratchet and pawl interposed between the last or driving arbor of each movement and the said common unlocking device, whereby the said device may be driven by either or both of the movements, and the stoppage of one movement will not necessarily cause the stoppage of the other, substantially as described.

"12. The combination, with the time-movements, of the wheels H and I, the ratchets K L, and the common wheel M, arranged substantially as described, for the purpose set forth.

"13. In combination with the dial, the seventh-day camwheel A, adjustable, as described, to prevent the falling of the bent lever R and dog V, either periodically or at required times, as described.

"14. The combination, in a time-lock, of time mechanism, a revolving graduated dial actuated thereby, a bent lever oscillated by the revolution of the dial on an immovable pivot, and a dog or obstruction, also oscillated on an immovable pivot, the lever and dog being so arranged that when one arm of the lever is pushed aside at a predetermined time by the revolution of the dial, the other arm withdraws its support from under and permits the dog to turn by gravity, thereby leaving a free space for the retraction of the bolt-work, substantially as described.

"15. The combination of multiple sliding bolt-work, a dog or obstruction oscillated on an immovable pivot, and tending, by gravity, to turn so as not to dog the bolt-work, a bent lever, oscillated also on an immovable pivot, for holding the

Opinion of the Court.

dog in position against gravity, to dog the bolt-work, a revolving graduated dial, which, by its revolution at a predetermined time, oscillates the bent lever, and time mechanism that actuates the dial, substantially as described.

"16. The combination, substantially as before set forth, by means of suitable connecting mechanism, of the following elements, adapted, as combined, so to secure the door of a safe or vault, and to automatically release the same at a predetermined time, viz.: first, the multiple sliding bolt-work; second, the oscillating stop or dog, adapted to prevent the retraction of the bolt-work, and to be turned on its pivot to release the bolt-work at a time determined by the clock-work; third, the vibrating lever for holding the stop or dog in position to prevent the retraction of the bolt-work; and, fourth, the clockwork for determining the time when said lever shall be moved to permit the stop or dog to release the bolt-work.

"17. In a chronometric locking mechanism, the combination, substantially as before set forth, of the following elements, adapted as combined, to guard or dog the bolt-work of a safe or vault-door, and to automatically release the same at a predetermined time, viz.: first, the oscillating stop or dog, adapted to prevent the retraction of the bolt-work, and to be turned on its pivot to release the bolt-work at a time determined by the clock-work; second, the vibrating lever for holding the dog in position to prevent the retraction of the boltwork; third, the clock-work for determining the time when said lever shall be moved to permit the dog to fall to release the bolt-work; and, fourth, the graduated wheel or dial, rotated by the clock-work, and adapted to operate said lever, and to be set for varying and controlling the time when said lever shall be moved to permit the dog to release the boltwork."

Only claims 1 and 7 of the reissue are alleged to have been infringed. They take the place of claim 2 of the original patent. They were before Judge Shipman in the cases in 19 Blatchford and 6 Fed. Rep. above referred to, and he held that they covered new inventions and patentable improvements. Judge Lowell, in his opinion in the present case,

Opinion of the Court.

states that he fully agrees with the views of Judge Shipman as to the novelty and patentability of claims 1 and 7. Although the defendants' lock has but one time-movement to control the lever which controls the dog, Judge Lowell held that that did not affect the question of the infringement of claims 1 and 7.

In September, 1887, in Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. New Haven Savings Bank, 32 Fed. Rep. 167, in the Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut, Judge Shipman had before him the question of a rehearing as to the validity of claims 1 and 7, and especially the question whether claim 7 was an enlargement of claim 2 of the original patent. He held that claim 7 "should be limited to the invention which was described and claimed in the original patent, which invention was not confined to a common cam,' or to a device which was connected with the compound wheel in the same way in which the cam was connected, but was broad enough to include equivalent means of connection with the dog.". He held also that the owners of the patent had not abandoned, by proceedings in the Patent Office in respect to the two prior reissues of it, their right to claim, in reissue No. 8550, a double or compound disc, and to obtain a valid patent therefor.

Claims 1 and 7 were sustained also by Judge Sage, in the Circuit Court for the Western Division of the Southern District of Ohio, in May, 1889, in the case of Yale & Towne Mfg. Co. v. Consolidated Time-Lock Co., 38 Fed. Rep. 917.

This patent, as before stated, was reissued May 9, 1876, as No. 7104, and again, January 8, 1878, as No. 8035. The lock used by the defendants is made under letters patent No. 173,121, granted to Henry Gross, February 8, 1876, for an "improvement in time-attachments for locks." This patent was issued prior to the granting of any reissue of the Little patent. While the original patent, No. 146,832, had only three claims, reissue No. 7104 had eight claims, reissue No. 8035 had six claims, and reissue No. 8550 has seventeen claims. On comparing the various reissues with the original patent, it is found that the drawings and the description of them are substantially the same in all, with some changes in nomenclature; and it is quite apparent that the original patent was not

Opinion of the Court.

inoperative or invalid by reason of a defective or insufficient specification, within the terms of the statute, so as to warrant the reissues.

There is in the record a copy of the file-wrapper and contents of reissue No. 8035, applied for December 15, 1877, and granted January 8, 1878. The specification presented with the application contained only two claims, both of which made "a revolving dial" an essential element. On the 18th of December, 1877, an entirely new specification and claims were put in, the claims being ten in number. Claim 3 was as follows: "3. In a time-lock, the combination, substantially as above set forth, of the clock-work and two adjustable devices for determining, respectively, the times of locking and unlocking." That claim 3 is very similar to claim 7 of reissue No. 8550. On the 21st of December, 1877, that claim 3 was amended by striking out the word "clock-work," and inserting the words "time-movements," so that it became almost exactly the same as claim 7 of reissue No. 8550. On the 26th of December, 1877, that claim 3 was erased.

Claim 4 of reissue No. 8035, as originally applied for, read as follows: "The combination with one or more time-movements, of one or more wheels, H I, one or more ratchets, K L, and a common wheel, M, arranged as described, for the purposes set forth." This claim 4 was erased with claim 3, and in their place there was inserted the following as claim 3: "The combination with the time-movements of the wheels HI, the ratchets K L, and the common wheel, M, arranged as described, for the purpose set forth."

Claim 5 of reissue No. 8035, as applied for, was identical with claim 2 of the original patent, No. 146,832, as granted. That claim 5 was rejected by the examiner, on the ground that it was old in valve-gear for steam engines, with a reference to a prior patent; and on the 26th of December, 1877, it was erased and abandoned. Therefore, more than a year before reissue No. 8550 was granted, claim 2 of the original patent was abandoned by Little; and at the same time he also abandoned claim 3 of his application, after he had put it in such shape that it became substantially the same as claim 7 of