Pattee Plow Co. v. Kingman

Reissued patent 6,080 of 1874, second claim of which is under consideration, has, as to that claim, expanded the original beyond legal limits. Therefore said reissued patent is void to the extent claimed, wherein the defendant is alleged to have infringed.

2. As to Kendall patent No. 174,684 there is no infringement.

3. As to Pattee patent of 1877, No. 187,899, said patent is void, there being no novelty of invention therein that is patentable.

Bill dismissed, with costs.