WILSON V. COON. 611 �application was filed as, soou as the model was eompleted, and reached the patent-ofiace on the fifteenth of May, 1873." �During the period between November 6th and May 15th, Pope was buey» bajt he was net busy about this invention. He was occupied with other inventions, but he" \raa doing nothing with this one. The just and equitable principle of the law, which gives a patent to the inventer who first con- ceives of the invention, provided he is diligently engaged in perfecting it and adapting it to use, and overcoming the practical difficulties which are always to be surmounted be- fore theory becomes fact, although he was slower in the race than the one who was second to concoive, does not apply to Pope. Who faintly conceived the idea is not known. Pope first attained a mental resuit. After that, he was actively occupied in the same branch of study, but he did not develop this System in wood and metal. Hall did develop it, made it useful and practicable, and achieved success. In my opinion it would be a great wrung to decide that the defend- ant is liable as an infringer. �Let the bill be dismissed. ���WiLSON V. CooN and others. �{Oircuit Court, 8. 1). Nm York. December 28, 1880.) �1. "SPECrPICATION." �The Word " specification," as employed in the patent laws, when used without the word " claim," means description and claim. �2. Same— Re-Iss0b. �Hence, under section 4916 of the Revised Btatutes, a re-issue is allowed whea the specification is detective or inaufBcient, in regard to either the description or the claim, or to both, to such an extent as to render the patent inoperative or invalid, if the errer arose in the manner mentioned in the statute. �3. Same — Same. �If a patentee, in the description and claim in his original patent, erroneously set forth something short of his real invention, it is a proper case for a re-issue, although his real invention may be fully shown in the drawings and model. ��� �
