William O. Douglas

“ Petitioners in adapting the old machines to a related use were doing more than repair in the customary sense; but what they did was kin to repair for it bore on the useful capacity of the old combination, on which the royalty had been paid. We could not call it 'reconstruction' without saying that the patentee's right 'to exclude others from making' the patented machine, 35 U.S.C. § 154, had been infringed. Yet adaptation for use of the machine on a '5-ounce' can is within the patent rights purchased, since size was not an invention. ”

“ If the right to make does not exist, there is no right to rebuild the combination.' On the other hand, 'When the wearing or injury is partial, then repair is restoration, and not reconstruction.' Ibid. Replacing worn-out cutting knives in a planing machine was held to be 'repair,' not 'reconstruction,' in Wilson v. ”

“ Simmons, 106 U.S. 89, 1 S.Ct. 52, 27 L.Ed. 79 (reconstruction) ; Heyer v. Duplicator Mfg. Co., 263 U.S. 100, 44 S.Ct. 31, 68 L.Ed. 189 (repair) .
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105) . ”