Opinion of the court. upon sufficient cause. But after the parties have argued the case upon the exception, and judgment has been pronounced, it is too late to reopen it. Ar a subsequent day of the term, a petition was filed by the plaintiffs in error, that the foregoing case might be reopened for the purpose of amending the bill of exceptions, and reargued on such amended bill. The petition recited certain portions of the opinion of this court in the case relating to the Conner safe, wherein the court, after recapitulating the evidence applicable thereto, as well as the instruction given by the court below, decide that there was no error in such instruction, which "put it to the jury to say, whether this safe had been finally forgotten or abandoned before Fitzgerald's invention, and whether he was the original inventor of the safe for which he had obtained the patent; directing them, if they found these two facts, that their verdict must be for the plaintiff." The petition then avers, that the existence and use of the Conner safe, from the time of its construction to the time of the trial, was proved in the court below, and that it was so stated in a bill of exceptions prepared by the counsel of the petitioners and submitted to the court. That the original plaintiff did not make any specific objections to petitioners' statement of the evidence as to the Conner safe, (as is alleged to be the practice settled by the Supreme Court of New York,) but proposed a different bill of exceptions as a substitute therefor, which the court below adopted, against the remonstrance of petitioners' counsel. The petition then insists, that if the facts stated in petitioners' bill of exceptions respecting the Conner safe had been set forth substantially in any bill of exceptions, this court, upon the principles contained in their opinion, must have determined this cause in favor of plaintiffs in error. Mr. Core moved for a reargument on the grounds stated in the petition. Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court. This case was argued early in the present term, and the judgment of the Circuit Court affirmed. A motion is now made to open the judgment for the purpose of amending the bill of exceptions and rehearing the case, upon the ground that material evidence offered by the plaintiffs in error, which might have influenced the judgment of this court, has been omitted in the bill of exceptions contained in the record. If any error or mistake was committed in framing this exception, it might undoubtedly have been corrected by a certiorari, if the appli Statement of the case. But cation had been made in due time and upon sufficient cause. this application is too late, even if the evidence which the plaintiffs in error propose to introduce would have influenced the decision. We by no means intend to say that it would have done so. But they rested satisfied with the exception as it stood; made no objection to it here; and argued the case and awaited the judgment of the court upon the evidence as stated in the exception. After that judgment has been pronounced, it is too late to say that the statement was imperfect or erroneous, and to make a new case by the introduction of new evidence, and a new exception. The motion is therefore OVERRULED. JULIA P. HOTCHKISS, EXECUTRIX OF JOHN G. HOTCHKISS, DECEASED, JOHN A. DAVENPORT, AND JOHN W. QUINCY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. MILES GREENWOOD AND THOMAS WOOD, PARTNERS IN TRADE UNDER THE NAME OF M. GREENWOOD & Co. (11 Howard, 248.) 1. A patent granted for a "new and useful improvement in making door and other knobs, of all kinds of clay used in pottery, and of porcelain,” by having the "cavity in which the screw or shank is inserted, by which they are fastened, largest at the bottom of its depth, in form of a dovetail, and a screw formed therein by pouring in metal in a fused state,” was invalid. 2. The invention claimed in the schedule was manufacturing knobs as above described, of potter's clay, or any kind of clay used in pottery, and shaped and finished by moulding, turning, burning, and glazing; and also of porcelain. 3. The knob was not new, nor the metallic shank and spindle, nor the dovetail form of the cavity in the knob, nor the means by which the metallic shank was securly fastened therein. Knobs had also been used made of clay. 4. The only thing new was the substitution of a knob made out of clay in that peculiar form for a knob of metal or wood. This might have been a better or cheaper article, but is not the subject of a patent. 5. The test was, that, if no more ingenuity and skill was necessary to construct the new knob than was possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business, the patent was void; and this was a proper question for the jury. THIS case was brought up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Ohio. It was a question involving the validity of a patent-right under the following circumstances. The patent and specification were as follows: "The United States of America to all to whom these letters patent shall come: Statement of the case. "Whereas, John G. Hotchkiss, New Haven, Conn., John A. Davenport, and John W. Quincy, New York, have alleged that they have invented a new and useful improvement in making door and other knobs, of all kinds of clay used in pottery, and of porcelain, which they state has not been known or used before their application; have made oath that they are citizens of the United States, that they do verily believe that they are the original and first inventors or discoverers of the said improvement, and that the same hath not, to the best of their knowledge and belief, been previously known or used; have paid into the treasury of the United States the sum of thirty dollars, and presented a petition to the Commissioner of Patents, signifying a desire of obtaining an exclusive property in the said improvement, and praying that a patent may be granted for that purpose: These are, therefore, to grant, according to law, to the said John G. Hotchkiss, John A. Davenport, and John W. Quincy, their heirs, administrators, or assigns, for the term of fourteen years from the 29th day of July, 1841, the full and exclusive right and liberty of making, constructing, using, and vending to others to be used the said improvement, a description whereof is given, in the words of the said Hotchkiss, Davenport, and Quincy, in the schedule hereunto annexed, and is made a part of these presents. "In testimony whereof, I have caused these letters to be made patent, and the seal of the Patent Office has been hereunto affixed. "Given under my hand, at the city of Washington, this 29th day of July, A. D. 1841, and of the independence of the United States of America the sixty-sixth. "DANIEL WEBSTER, 66 Countersigned and sealed with the seal of the Patent Office. "Commissioner of Patents." "The schedule referred to in these letters patent, and making a part of the same. "To all whom it may concern: Be it known, that we, John G. Hotchkiss, of the city and county of New Haven, and State of Connecticut, and John A. Davenport and John W. Quincy, both of the city, county, and State of New York, have invented an improved method of making knobs for locks, doors, cabinet furniture, and for all other purposes for which wood and metal or other material knobs are used. This improvement consists in making said knobs of potter's clay, such as is used in any species of pottery; also of porcelain; the operation is the same as in pottery, by moulding, turning, and Statement of the case. burning and glazing; they may be plain in surface and color, or ornamented to any degree in both; the modes of fitting them for their application to doors, locks, furniture, and other uses will be as various as the uses to which they may be applied, but chiefly predicated on one principle-that of having the cavity in which the screw or shank is inserted, by which they are fastened, largest at the bottom of its depth, in form of a dovetail, and a screw formed therein by pouring in metal in a fused state. In the annexed drawing, A represents a knob with a large screw inserted, for drawers and similar purposes; B represents a knob with a shank to pass through and receive a nut; C, the head of the knob calculated to receive a metallic neck; D, a knob with a shank calculated to receive a nut on the outside or front. What we claim as our invention, and desire to secure by letters patent, is the manufacturing of knobs, as stated in the foregoing specifications, of potter's clay, or any kind of clay used in pottery, and shaped and finished by moulding, turning, burning, and glazing; and also of porcelain. "JOHN G. HOTCHKISS. "Witnesses: ALPS. SHERMAN, JAMES MONTGOMERY." In October, 1845, the plaintiffs in error brought an action, in the Circuit Court of the United States for Ohio, against the defendants, for a violation of the patent-right. The defendants pleaded not guilty, and gave the following notice: "The plaintiffs will please take notice, that on the trial of the above cause the defendants will give in evidence to the jury, that the said John G. Hotchkiss, John A. Davenport, and John W. Quincy were not the original and first inventors and discoverers of making or manufacturing knobs of potter's clay or of porcelain. They will also prove that the making of knobs from potter's clay, and also from porcelain and other clays used by potters, was known and practiced, and such knobs were made, used, and sold in the cities of New York, Albany, Troy, and Brooklyn, in the State of New York; also in Jersey City, in the State of New Jersey'; also in the city of Philadelphia, State of Pennsylvania; by John Mayer, Thomas Frere, William Lundy, Jr., and Charles W. Vernerck, residing in the city of New York; also by John Harrison, residing in Jersey City, in the State of New Jersey; and by Littlefield, Hattrick & Shannon, of Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, long before the 29th day of July, in the year 1841, the date of the patent in the declaration mentioned. They will also prove that similar knobs were manufactured of potter's clay, Statement of the case. and also of porcelain, and were also used and sold, long prior to the said 29th day of July, 1841, in the town of Burslem, in Staffordshire, England; also in the town of Sandyford, near Tunstall; also in the town of Hanley, Staffordshire, England; also at Woodenbose village, in the county of Derbyshire, England. And the said defendants will prove the manufacture and use of said knobs, so made of clay and porcelain, by Godfrey Webster and John Webster, who now reside in East Liverpool, Columbiana county, Ohio; and also by Enoch Bulloch, who now resides in Wellsville, in the same county; also by Daniel Bennett, who now [resides] in the city of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, all of whom formerly resided in Staffordshire, England. The defendants will also prove that the said patentees, John G. Hotchkiss, John A. Davenport, and John W. Quincy, at the time of making application for the said patent, well knew that the said knob so patented had been previously made and sold in a foreign country, to wit, in the kingdom of Great Britain, and also in Germany, and did not believe themselves to be the first inventors or discoverers of manufacturing knobs from potter's clay or porcelain. All of which will be insisted upon in bar of the action. "CHARLES Fox, "Attorney for the Defendants." And in July, 1848, the following additional notice: "The plaintiffs in this cause will please take notice, that on the trial of the cause the defendants will give in evidence to the jury, that the said John G. Hotchkiss, John A. Davenport, and John W. Quincy were not the original and first inventors and discoverers of making or manufacturing knobs of potter's clay, or of porcelain. They will also prove, that knobs made of potter's clay, and of porcelain and other clays, had been previously publicly used and sold in the cities of New York, Albany, Troy, and Brooklyn, in the State of New York; also in Jersey City, in the State of New Jersey; also in New Haven and Middletown, in the State of Connecticut, long before and at the date of the patent under which the plaintiff's claim. The defendants will likewise prove, on said trial, that John Mayer, residing in Staten Island; Hoope & Lee, residing in the city of Brooklyn, in the State of New York; Edward H. Higgins, John Penfield, John Duntze, residing in New Haven, in the State of Connecticut; Matthew Fifo, William Fifo, Jane Fifo, John C. Smith, and certain persons doing business under the name of Smith, Fifo & Co., residing in the city of Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, as early as the year 1831, and from that time on, and until and at the time of |