Opinion of the Court. On the other hand, it does not follow, either from the amended or the original patent, that a driven well, according to the process described, may not be constructed and operated, notwithstanding in its construction some rock has to be penetrated. There may be a layer of rock on the surface; when this is removed or cut through, a driven well may then be constructed in the space thus uncovered from the obstruction. So, if a stratum of rock is met in the course of driving the rod or tube, that layer may be penetrated, not by driving the rod or tube through it, but by other usual means of boring and drilling. After it is passed, the rod or tube having been inserted in the opening made through the rock, may then be driven in the usual manner through the remainder of its course until it reaches a water-bearing stratum of earth, as if no rock had been met in its passage. The object and purpose of the amendments to the specification obviously were to meet a possible construction of the original, whereby the patentee would be precluded from the use of his process where it was evidently intended to be applied, simply because one or more strata of rock had to be penetrated in the process of driving. Such, in our opinion, is not the meaning of the original patent. Its true meaning is, that, so far as it may be necessary to penetrate a rock in the course of constructing a well, the process of driving cannot be used to overcome the obstacle presented by the rock, but that otherwise the tube may be driven until it reaches the proper supply of water, and then operate as a driven well. The only effect of the amendments contained in the new specification and claim is to make that intention clear. So far as, in the course of constructing a well, rock must be penetrated, the driven well process cannot be used in the perforation of the rock, but in every other part of its course it may be applied. Such, in our judgment, is the legal effect of both the original and the reissued patents. In our opinion, therefore, the grounds on which it is sought to invalidate the reissued patent, as being for a different invention from that described in the original, cannot be sustained. Opinion of the Court. This conclusion is not in conflict with anything said in Russell v. Dodge, 93 U. S. 460, 463. Mr. Justice Field, in delivering the opinion of the court in that case, referring to the provisions of the statutes in reference to reissues, said: "According to these provisions a reissue could only be had where the original patent was inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective or insufficient description or specification, or where the claim of the patentee exceeded his right; and then only in case the error committed had arisen from the causes stated. And as a reissue could only be granted for the same invention embraced by the original patent, the specification could not be substantially changed, either by the addition of new matter or the omission of important particulars, so as to enlarge the scope of the invention as originally claimed. A defective specification could be rendered more definite and certain so as to embrace the claim made, or the claim could be so modified as to correspond with the specification; but, except under special circumstances, such as occurred in the case of Lockwood v. Morey, 8 Wall. 230, where the inventor was induced to limit his claim by the mistake of the Commissioner of Patents, this was the extent to which the operation of the original patent could be changed by the reissue. The object of the law was to enable patentees to remedy accidental mistakes, and the law was perverted when any other end was secured by the reissue." And this is in harmony with all that has since been said by this court on the subject of reissued patents. It is further contended on the part of the appellant that the reissued patent in suit is void for want of novelty: the 1. Under this head, it is first alleged that it is anticipated. by a patent granted to James Suggett, March 29, 1864. In specification of the original patent of Green, of January 14, 1868, he says: "I am aware of James Suggett's patent of March 29, 1864, and I disclaim all secured to him therein." The reissued patent omits that disclaimer. After the application for the reissued patent, as appears by the contents of the file wrapper, an interference was declared, to which the parties were Byron Mudge, for a reissue of his patent for a mode of Opinion of the Court. constructing wells, and the above named patent of James Suggett, for putting down and operating bored wells, and the application of Colonel Green. The matter was carried by appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. The judgment of that court was, that Suggett was entitled to priority of invention in regard to what was claimed by him in his patent, and that Colonel Green was also entitled to have a patent issued to him according to his amended specification. The decision of the judge of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia says: "I am clearly of opinion that Green first put into practice the conception of making a driven well, and is entitled, therefore, to his patent for the broad claim of sinking wells by driving down the pump or rod without removing the dirt upward, and that Suggett was entitled to a patent for the perforated pipe and point for sinking wells, and I therefore affirm the decision of the Commissioner." Suggett's patent, on the face of his specification, is for a "new and improved method of putting down and operating bored wells," and all that his claim covers is the apparatus consisting of the perforated pipe with a pointed end, constructed as a drill, and united with a pump. The subjects of the two patents are quite different, and do not necessarily conflict, even on the supposition that Suggett's patent is in force, although, as testified in this case, it has been judicially declared to be invalid for want of novelty. 2. An anticipation of the driven-well patent is also alleged by reason of an English patent granted to John Goode, August 20, 1823. That patent, however, like that of Suggett's, does not profess to be a patent for a process of raising water from the earth by means of wells of any particular construction or mode of operation, but merely for "certain tools of various formation for the purpose of boring the earth, and certain apparatus for the purpose of raising water," which the patentee says "constitute my certain improvements as aforesaid." 3. It is further contended that the driven-well patent is anticipated by having been previously described in numerous printed publications. Of these there were introduced in evi Opinion of the Court. dence in this cause by the appellant those enumerated in the following list: 1. An extract from vol. 4, "Repertory of Patent Inventions," published in London in 1827, by T. & G. Underwood, p. 113, which, however, merely contains a detailed description of the machinery, tools, and apparatus for boring the earth, described in John Goode's patent of August 20, 1823. 2. Extract from "Dictionary of Arts, Manufactures, and Mines," by Andrew Ure, published in New York in 1847, by D. Appleton & Co., p. 63, under the head of " Artesian Wells." 3. Extract from p. 388 of "MacKenzie's 5000 Receipts in All the Useful and Domestic Arts," first published in 1840. 4. Extract from "Rees' Cyclopædia," vol. 40, published at Philadelphia by Samuel F. Bradford, about 1819, title "Well in Rural Economy." 5. Extract from "Journal of the Franklin Institute," third series, published at Philadelphia, by the Franklin Institute, in 1844, vol. 7, p. 128. 6. Extract from "Brande's Encyclopædia, or Dictionary of Science, Literature, and Art," published by Harper Bros., New York, in 1843, vol. 3, page 1333, under article "Well.” 7. Extract from "Rees' Cyclopædia," vol. 33, title "Spring Draining Pump." 8. Extract from "London Encyclopædia," published by Thomas Tegg, London, 1829, vol. 22, p. 593. 9. Extract from "Mechanics' Magazine," published by Knight & Lacey, London, 1824, vol. 2, pp. 15 and 16. 10. Extract from "Harper's New Monthly Magazine," September, 1851, p. 540. 11. Extract from "De L'Art du Fontenier Sondeur et des Puits Artésiens," published in Paris, France, in 1822, p. 99, $ 79. 12. Extract from "Bulletin du Musée de l'Industrie," published by De Mot et Cie, Bruxelles, 1846, tome 10, p. 163. 13. Extract from "Héricart de Thury, Jaillissement des Eaux," published by Bachelier, Paris, France, 1829, pp. 274, 275. 14. Extract from "F. Arago, Oeuvres," tome 6, by Gide et J. Baudry, Paris, and Leipzig, by J. O. Weigel, 1856, p. 457. VOL. CXXII-5 Opinion of the Court. 15. Extract from "F. Garnier, Traité sur les Puits Artésiens," published by Bachelier, Paris, France, 1826, p. 207. 16. Extract from the "Encyclopædia of Domestic Economy," published in New York in 1849 by Harper Bros., p. 848. The rule governing defences alleging the invalidity of the patent by reason of prior printed publications was stated by Mr. Justice Clifford in Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516, 555, in this language: "Patented inventions cannot be superseded by the mere introduction of a foreign publication of the kind, though of prior date, unless the description and drawings contain and exhibit a substantial representation of the patented improvement, in such full, clear, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which it appertains, to make, construct, and practice the invention to the same practical extent as they would be enabled to do if the information was derived from a prior patent. Mere vague and general representations will not support such a defence, as the knowledge supposed to be derived from the publication must be sufficient to enable those skilled in the art or science to understand the nature and operation of the invention, and to carry it into practical use. Whatever may be the particular circumstances under which the publication takes place, the account published, to be of any effect to support such a defence, must be an account of a complete and operative invention, capable of being put into practical operation.” The same rule was repeated by Mr. Justice Strong in the opinion of the court in Cohn v. United States Corset Co., 93 U. S. 366, 370, as follows: "It must be admitted that, unless the earlier printed and published description does exhibit the later patented invention in such a full and intelligible manner as to enable persons skilled in the art to which the invention is related to comprehend it without assistance from the patent, or to make it, or repeat the process claimed, it is insufficient to invalidate the patent." This rule was affirmed in Downton v. Yeager Milling Co., 108 U. S. 466, 471. The application of this rule to the publications relied upon in the present case shows that none of them can properly be said to anticipate the invention of the driven well. It would |