Eames v. Andrews, 122 U.S. 40 (1887)
U.S. Supreme CourtEames v. Andrews, 122 U.S. 40 (1887)
Eames v. Andrews
Argued January 6-7, 1887
Decided May 23, 1887
122 U.S. 40
The reissued letters patent, No. 4372, issued to Nelson W. Green, May 9, 1811, 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 air-tight 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.
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 invention 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 Downton v. Yeager Milling Co., 108 U. S. 466.
The evidence shows a clear case of infringement on the part of the defendant in error.
Bill in equity to restrain an infringement of letters patent for a driven well. Decree for a perpetual injunction, from which respondent appealed. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.