reissue No. 8550. Opinion of the Court. Reissue No. 8035 was taken out without those claims. No one of the six claims of reissue No. 8035 was infringed by the lock of the defendants, which was applied to use during the existence of reissue No. 8035. A little over nine months after it was granted, the application for reissue No. 8550 was filed; and the present suit was brought eight days after that reissue was granted. In the specification of reissue No. 8035, the following statements were made: "The object of my invention is to construct a time-lock, and to combine it with the multiple sliding boltwork of a safe or vault-door, so that, by the continuous movement of its time mechanism, locking and unlocking will be effected daily or periodically. The gist of my invention, therefore, is the combination, in a time-lock, of time mechanism revolving a graduated dial, which serves to oscillate a pivoted bent lever, that, in turn, induces the oscillation of a pivoted dog or obstruction to the retraction of the multiple sliding bolt-work. Subordinate to this main principle or chief organization of my time-lock, I provide that my dial shall be composite in its construction, whereby I obtain what I term a 'differential cam' for convenience of adjustment.' These statements do not appear in the specification of reissue No. 8550. In the latter specification, what had been previously called "a revolving graduated dial" is called "adjustable devices;" the dial is said to have "bolt or dog-actuating points;" and a statement is made that the lock of Little “is, so far as I am aware, the first time-lock which locks at a time. determined by the time mechanism, while at the same time the hours for locking and unlocking can be changed without altering the construction of the lock." So that, in this reissue, which was granted almost five years after the date of the original patent, and over three years after the Gross patent was issued, the attempt is made by Little to cover all devices for determining the time of locking and unlocking, on the view that he was the first to invent a lock that would lock up as well as unlock at a predetermined time. This attempt is embodied in claims 1 and 7 of reissue No. 8550, which are here repeated: "1. The combination of independent multiple Opinion of the Court. bolt-work with the time mechanism and locking or dogging mechanism of a time-lock, automatically both dogging and releasing the bolt-work at predetermined times, substantially as described." "7. In a time-lock, the combination, substantially as above set forth, of the time movements and two adjustable devices, one for determining the time of locking, and the other of unlocking." Although the first reissue, No. 7104, was applied for March 15, 1876, more than two months after the Gross patent was issued, no such claims as the above were applied for or taken, nor were they taken in reissue No. 8035. Claims 3, 7 and 8 of reissue No. 7104 were abandoned in reissue No. 8035, and severally appear as claims 7, 16 and 17, in reissue No. 8550, claim 7 in No. 8550 being in these words, as claim 3, in No. 7104: "3. In a chronometric locking mechanism, the combination, substantially as before set forth, of the clock-work and two adjustable devices for determining, respectively, the time of locking and unlocking." Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 11 in No. 8550 are entirely new. Claim 2 of the original patent, No. 146,832, was not retained in No. 8550, and only two claims out of the seventeen in No. 8550 are found in the original patent. Infringement is alleged of claim 1 of reissue No. 8550, which is an entirely new claim, not found in the original patent or in any prior reissue, and of claim 7, which was claim 3 in reissue No. 7104, and was first amended and then abandoned in the application for reissue No. 8035. If claim 1 of reissue No. 8550 is construed to cover only the specific devices of Little, operating in the mode described by him, and thus is no broader than claim 2 of the original patent, the defendants' lock does not infringe it. If it is not so limited, it is void, under numerous decisions of this court. In Little's time-lock, there is a compound cam-wheel or disc, composed of two cam-wheels placed face to face on the same axis, each having a portion of its outer edge cut away, and so arranged that they can be turned with relation to each other so as to increase the length of their common projection or common depression, and be fastened together in any de Opinion of the Court. sired position by means of a slot and a thumb-screw in one of them. When adjusted, this compound cam-wheel is revolved by clock-work and made alternately to lift up and let down a lever which in turn lifts up or lets down another lever, the end of which is supported in a position behind one of the bolts of the door, or is allowed to drop away from behind it, thus alternately dogging and releasing the bolt. It is the office of the common projection on the wheels to lift, and then hold up, the levers in the dogging position; and the length of time the bolts will remain dogged depends solely on the length of the common projection. In the defendants' lock there is only one time-movement, and there are no wheels of any kind, much less wheels like the cam-wheels B and C of Little's original patent, with projections and depressions, which can be rotated so as to increase and diminish the surface of a common cam or depression; nor has it any cam projection or cam depression of any kind, formed in any manner, whose office is to lift and hold up and let fall a lever, and thus dog and release the bolt of a safedoor; nor has it a device of any kind capable of performing the function of Little's cam-wheels. Little does not describe or suggest, in his original patent, any way by which he can dispense with the use of his cam projections to lift and hold up the dog; and he confines claim 2 of his original patent to a combination in which two cam-wheels, capable of being rotated and adjusted with relation to each other, so as to increase and diminish the surface of a common cam, for the purpose of lifting and holding up the dog, are essential. Claim 7 of reissue No. 8550 was evidently drawn so as to cover the time-attachment of the defendants' lock, which does not itself lock up or unlock the bolt-work, but only determines the time when the bolt work may be unlocked by the combination-lock. Claim 7 is not limited to devices which automatically lock and unlock, but extends to devices which merely interfere with mechanical locking and unlocking. Such a construction of claim 7, a claim once abandoned in the Patent Office and restored in this reissue, cannot be admitted in consistency with numerous decisions of this court on the VOL. CXXXV-26 Opinion of the Court. subject of reissues. If, however, claim 7 is so construed as to be no broader than claim 2 of the original patent, then the defendants' lock, as it did not infringe the latter claim, does not infringe claim 7. It is shown that it was old to use time mechanism, revolving dials with adjustable devices, pivoted levers and dogs, to lock and unlock door-bolts; and that the combination of clock-work, adjustable cam-wheels, and a two-armed lever oscillated thereby, was old. In this view, in his original patent, Little very properly limited his claims to his mode of connecting two clocks with a common wheel, so that both could act together in turning it, and either one could turn it alone in case the other stopped; and to the employment of the specific cam-wheels with depressions and projections so located as to increase and diminish the surface of a common cam by rotation on each other, so as to lift and hold up the dog behind the bolt of the door; and to the introduction of his Sunday wheel. The lock of the defendants did not infringe any of the claims of the original patent, because it did not have the two clocks, the Sunday wheel, the camwheels or any mechanical equivalent therefor, and did not move the dog automatically into the dogging position. The application for reissue No. 7104 was made more than two years after the original patent was granted, and one month and seven days after the Gross patent was issued, containing the devices which are employed in the defendants' lock. Reissue No. 8550 was applied for nearly four years and nine months after the original patent was granted, and more than two years and eight months after the Gross patent was issued, and after the lock of the defendants had been put into use. No excuse is shown for these delays; nor is there any defect or insufficiency in the specification of the original patent. In December, 1877, during the pendency of the application for reissue No. 8035, Little acquiesced in the rejection, for want of novelty, of claim 2 of his original patent, and then abandoned a claim corresponding with claim 7 of reissue No. 8550, and took out reissue No. 8035 without such claim. The lock of the defendants did not infringe any claim of Syllabus. reissue No. 8035. Claim 1 of reissue No. 8550 is entirely new, and claim 7 of that reissue is the same as claim 3 of the application for reissue No. 8035, which claim was first amended and then abandoned. It was not lawful to introduce claim 7 into reissue No. 8550, after such formal abandonment of it. If either claim 1 or claim 7 of reissue No. 8550 covers a device which would not have been covered by claim 2 of the original patent, or by any of the claims of reissue No. 8035, it is invalid; and even if claims 1 and 7 could properly be restricted to the cam-wheels of the specification or their mechanical equivalents, operating as described, as claim 2 of the original patent was restricted, the lock of the defendants does not infringe either claim 1 or claim 7. For these reasons, it must be held that the plaintiffs have no cause of action against the defendants under claims 1 and 7 of reissue No. 8550: It results that the decree of February 12, 1886, must be affirmed so far as it relates to the Sargent reissue No. 7947, and reversed so far as it relates to the Little reissue No. 8550, and the cause be remanded to the Circuit Court with a direction to dismiss the bill of complaint, with costs to the defendants. As the plaintiffs fail in this court on both appeals, they are to pay the costs of this court on both appeals. No. 11. Original. Argued March 31, April 1, 1890.- Decided May 5, 1890. The Consul General of Guatemala and Honduras in New York, being a citizen of and resident in the United States, was accredited by the government of Honduras as its diplomatic representative here. The Secretary of State declined to receive him as such, on the ground that the immunities and privileges attaching to the office made it inconsistent and inconvenient that a citizen of the United States should "enjoy so anomalous a position." The Consul General then inquired whether the Department would regard him as chargé d'affaires ad hoc of Honduras, without relieving him of his duties and responsibilities as a citizen; to which the Department replied that it could not recognize his agency as con 135 403 L-ed 222 137 216 135 403 L-ed 22 169 679 135 403 L-ed 222 76f 148 135 403 L-ed 222 79f 752 |