US 217255

Summary of US Patent 217255

Important scope note on searches: Searches for USPTO/CAFC records for exactly 217255 returned no results from those databases via live web search. The only near-number hit was WO 2019/217255 (an unrelated PCT microbial-inoculant application), which is not the subject patent and is excluded per your instruction not to return similar numbers. No CAFC 2026 docket entries referencing 217255 were found — there is no indication of any 2026 Federal Circuit activity involving this patent. The data below is taken from the authoritative full-text record of US217255A (Google Patents), which you supplied, and I treat that as ground truth for this 19th-century patent.

Bibliographic data

• Patent number: US217255A (US217255D was the expired application/patent record)
• Title: Improvement in bale-ties
• Inventor: David F. Agnew, of Allegheny, Pennsylvania (sole inventor)
• Assignee: None listed. The face of the patent names only the inventor; no assignee appears on the record.
• Filing date: May 28, 1878 (application)
• Issue date: July 8, 1879
• Legal status: Expired – Lifetime (Google's record shows anticipated expiration on July 8, 1896, consistent with the then-applicable 17-year term)
• Classification: B65D63/00, B65D63/02, B65D63/06, B65D63/08 (metallic straps/bands and joints); Y10T24/14 and subclasses (bale and package ties, metal bands)
• Abstract: None exists — 1870s patents did not include abstracts. The description (specification) is the disclosure.

What the invention is (plain language)

A cheap, efficient union or tie for baling bands. Two metallic links (C, D) connect the two ends (A, B) of a band. Each link has a straight portion (e), and the other parts of the link are twisted/curved so that during the baling operation the link can be turned to receive the band end and then brought back to lie nearly in the plane of the band at the point of union — keeping the tie flat against the bale.

Two modes of use are described:

1. A band end is inserted through the link's opening and bent back over the straight portion; the link is then turned so the overlapped portion of the band ends up underneath.
2. Optionally, the straight portion (e) contains an opening (f) through which a looped band end is inserted edgewise; the link is turned within the loop so the opening sits midway between the two edges of the band.

The specification notes the links may be built without the opening (f), in which case only the first (bend-over) mode is used.

Independent claims (verbatim, with OCR caveat)

Claim 1. "The links C D, having a straight portion, e, and openings f, the other parts of said links being twisted, substantially as shown, whereby they may be operated as hereinbefore described, and brought on a plane with the ends of the band, as and for the purpose set forth."

Plain-language overview: A bale-tie made of two links (C, D), each having a straight portion (e) provided with an opening (f), with the remaining parts of each link twisted as shown. The twisting enables the links to be manipulated in the described manner and brought into the plane of the band ends — i.e., lying flat at the union point.

Claim 2. "The links C D, having a straight portion, e, and a twisted portion, substantially as shown, whereby the said links are susceptible of being operated and brought on a plane with the ends of the band, substantially as herein described, and for the purpose set forth."

Plain-language overview: A narrower scope covering the two links (C, D) each with a straight portion (e) and a twisted portion as shown — notably without requiring the opening (f). The twisted configuration alone makes the links operable so they can be brought into the plane of the band ends. (This corresponds to the specification's disclosure that links may be made without opening f, using the bend-back-and-turn-under mode.)

Both claims are independent; neither depends on the other. The only difference between them is that claim 1 requires the straight portion to carry an opening (f), whereas claim 2 omits that structural element and rests on the straight-plus-twisted link geometry.

Uncertainties

• Reference characters: The Google full-text OCR renders the link letters inconsistently (e.g., "0 D" for what are clearly links "C D"; "straight portion, 0/6" for the straight portion "e"). I have interpreted the identifiers per the claim text itself ("links C D … straight portion, e … openings f") but flag that the underlying USPTO image may show slightly different glyphs.
• Assignor/assignment history: No assignment data was retrievable; for 1879 patents the inventor is the presumptive original owner.
• No CAFC activity found: Absence of docket hits suggests no pending 2026 appeal, but I could not independently verify an empty docket; treat "no CAFC proceeding found" as a search-based negative, not a certified confirmation.

The initial results surfaced a Delaware case, but I need to verify whether it actually involves the patent number 217255 or merely an FDA application number that happens to be "217255." Let me run additional targeted searches.

One more verification pass to make sure there is no docket referencing the 1879 patent number itself.

Litigation Search Results for US Patent 217255

No litigation is known involving US Patent 217255.

What the patent is

US217255A is the "Improvement in bale-ties" patent issued to David F. Agnew of Allegheny, Pennsylvania, dated July 8, 1879 (application filed May 28, 1878). It is a 19th-century mechanical patent covering twisted metal links for joining bale-band ends. The patent expired long ago (Google Patents lists an anticipated expiration of July 8, 1896, and its legal status is "Expired – Lifetime").

Search results — important false positive (excluded per your instructions)

Searches for "217255" in litigation databases surface one recurring matter:

• Veloxis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc. et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:22-cv-00909 (filed July 7, 2022).

This case does NOT involve US Patent 217255. The number "217255" in that case is FDA ANDA (Abbreviated New Drug Application) No. 217255, an application for generic tacrolimus extended-release tablets (a version of ENVARSUS XR®). The patents actually asserted there are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,685,998; 9,549,918; 10,166,190; 10,864,199; 11,110,081; and 11,123,331 — all modern pharmaceutical patents wholly unrelated to the 1879 Agnew bale-tie patent. Per your instruction to interpret identifiers literally and not to substitute similar numbers, I have not counted this as litigation of patent 217255.

Conclusion

• Plaintiff(s): None identified.
• Defendant(s): None identified.
• Jurisdiction / case number / filing date / outcome: N/A.
• Status: No known litigation — which is unsurprising given that the patent is a pre-1900 mechanical patent that expired in 1896, well over a century before any modern electronic docket records begin, and long after any conceivable enforcement window.

If you intended the identifier "217255" to refer to the FDA ANDA number (not a patent), then the Veloxis v. Accord Delaware action (1:22-cv-00909) would be the relevant matter — but that is a different identifier class from a U.S. patent number, and I have treated it as such.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file for US 217255A — the USPTO Open Data Portal structured block lists none, and targeted web searching (USPTO PTAB E2E surfaces, CAFC docket/ CourtListener, general patent-litigation databases) returned no IPR, PGR, or CBM petitions against this patent. The only "217255" hits online are coincidental number collisions (e.g., FDA ANDA No. 217255 for tacrolimus tablets; PCT publication WO 2019/217255) and are unrelated to this patent. Status breakdown: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied. The defensive posture this gives a defendant: there is no PTAB record at all — but that is expected, because US 217255 is an 1879 patent that expired in 1896, more than a century before the AIA trial regime (effective 2012-09-16) even existed. No proceeding sections follow because there are no proceedings to report; details and strategic read are below.

Proceedings detail

None exist. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block states that the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest, and independent web searches confirm nothing older or more recent is indexed anywhere (USPTO PTAB, PTAB E2E, CourtListener, DocketAlarm, Google Patents litigation feeds). I will not invent proceeding numbers, panels, institution decisions, or Final Written Decisions — there are none to cite.

Key corroborating facts from the patent record itself:

• Patent metadata: US217255A, "Improvement in bale-ties," inventor David F. Agnew of Allegheny, Pennsylvania. Application filed 1878-05-28; granted/ published 1879-07-08. Two claims (a single independent-style claim and a narrower dependent-style claim, both drawn to the twisted links 0 D with a straight portion, e, and openings, f).
• Legal status: Expired - Lifetime, with anticipated expiration recorded as 1896-07-08 (the 17-year term from grant, pre-1995 regime).
• Temporal impossibility: IPR/PGR/CBM were created by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), effective 2012-09-16. This patent expired roughly 116 years before the first AIA petition could lawfully have been filed. No estoppel under § 315(e), no FWDs, no CAFC appeals — there is nothing for a petitioner to have lost, and nothing for a patent owner to have won.

Strategic summary

Claim status: UNTESTED (all claims), but unenforceable by lapse of time. Neither claim 1 nor claim 2 of US 217255A has ever been through an AIA trial — no claim is CANCELED, no claim is SUSTAINED by a PTAB FWD, and no claim has been tested at all. That sounds like a risk until you recall the controlling fact: the patent's term expired on 1896-07-08. A patent that has expired cannot be infringed prospectively, and any assertion based on pre-1896 conduct is barred by limitations many times over. The two claims (links having a straight portion e and opening f with twisted other parts; and the same links without the opening) are dead as a matter of law, not as a matter of PTAB litigation.

Estoppel landscape: vacuous. Because there are no petitioners and no IPR/PGR/CBM proceedings, there are no § 315(e)(2) estoppel bars against anyone. Every prior-art ground that could have been raised remains "available" in the abstract — but availability is moot because no defendant needs § 102/§ 103 invalidity contentions against a patent that expired 130 years ago. If a demand letter or complaint ever cites US 217255A, the correct defensive move is not IPR at all; it is a motion to dismiss / summary judgment on the ground that the patent's term expired in 1896 and no remedy can attach.

Pattern signals: none. No repeat petitioner, no Unified Patents or defensive-aggregator involvement, no PTAB appeals by the patent owner — because the patent owner (David F. Agnew, deceased in the 19th century) and every conceivable real-party-in-interest have been outside the patent-enforcement system for well over a century. The absence of IPR activity is not the usual "weak-assertion" signal; it is the natural consequence of a patent that predates the AIA by 133 years.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant facing assertion of US 217255A: Do not file an IPR — the petition would be an expensive, futile detour (and the patent's expired status raises standing and utility problems for any AIA trial). Instead, answer with the dispositive, non-PTAB defenses: (1) patent term expired 1896-07-08 (per the USPTO status record: "Expired - Lifetime," anticipated expiration 1896-07-08); (2) no post-expiration infringement is legally possible; and (3) any pre-expiration claim is barred by statutes of limitation and laches. Consider sanctions under Rule 11 / 28 U.S.C. § 1927 if the demand is pressed after these points are made, since asserting a 147-year-old expired patent is objectively unreasonable.
• There are no FWDs to link, no oral-hearing or institution deadlines to calendar, and no trial-stage milestones — with zero proceedings, the statutory 1-year IPR trial clock is not running on anything.
• Documentation trail: The authoritative status is visible on the Google Patents record for US217255A (https://patents.google.com/patent/US217255/en), which shows "Expired - Lifetime" and anticipated expiration 1896-07-08; the USPTO Assignment/Patent Center records and the ODP PTAB feed (no AIA trials) corroborate. Preserve a screenshot of the ODP "no proceedings" output and the patent's expiration status for the record.
• Verify the demand is even about this patent: Given the number collisions in public databases (ANDA 217255, WO 2019/217255), confirm the asserted patent number is really US 217255A (1879, bale-ties) and not a modern document with a coincidentally similar number before responding substantively.

Bottom line, plainly stated: There is no PTAB activity on file for US 217255A, and none ever will be — the patent has been expired since 1896. Any assertion of it is dead on arrival regardless of what the PTAB record does or doesn't show.

Inventors

• David F. Agnew, of Allegheny, Pennsylvania — sole named inventor on US217255A (per the patent face: "DAVID F. AGNEW, OF ALLEGHENY, PENNSYLVANIA").
• Employer at time of filing (May 28, 1878): not determinable from any public record I can access. The patent names no employer and no assignee, which is consistent with a 19th-century individual inventor prosecuting pro se.
• Unusual patterns (e.g., mass inventor departures preceding a fire-sale): not present / not applicable — single inventor, no corporate assignee, and no assignment history to correlate with employment events.

Original assignee

• None. The face of US217255A names only the inventor; no assignee appears. Under 1879 practice the patent issued directly to Agnew, and he is the presumptive original owner.
• Whether Agnew shipped a product embodying the claims (a twisted-link metallic bale-tie union): undeterminable — this is 1870s baling hardware and I found no commercialization evidence either way. His line of business per the record is simply inventor of bale-ties.
• Current status: the patent expired July 8, 1896 (Google's legal-status record: "Expired – Lifetime," anticipated expiration 1896-07-08, consistent with the then-applicable 17-year term). The inventor is long deceased; ownership is a historical matter only.

Assignment timeline

No recorded assignments exist for US217255 in the USPTO Assignment Center.

• The USPTO's own documentation states the searchable assignment database "contains all recorded Patent Assignment information back to August 1980" (USPTO, What are Assignments?, assignment.uspto.gov webinar deck). US217255 issued 1879-07-08 and expired 1896-07-08 — its entire enforceable life predates the electronic database by roughly a century. No reel/frame entry can exist for it in the online Assignment Center.
• Google Patents' legal-events tab for US217255A lists only two events: publication (1879-07-08) and anticipated expiration (1896-07-08). No assignment events are recorded there.
• Live web searches for "217255" assignment records returned nothing; the only near-number hit was WO 2019/217255 (an unrelated PCT microbial-inoculant application), which is not this patent.
• Residual caveat: assignments recorded between 1879 and 1896 would exist only on USPTO historical paper/microfilm records (pre-1980), which are not searchable online. I could not verify whether any such paper assignment was ever recorded. Absence from the electronic database is therefore a finding of no electronically recorded assignment, not a certified confirmation that none was ever filed on paper.

Per the task's no-records rule, I stop the substantive analysis here. The absence of any recorded post-issuance assignment is itself the finding: the patent was never transferred on the modern record, and it remained with the inventor (or his heirs/estate by operation of law) through natural expiration in 1896 — more than eight decades before the earliest date (August 1980) at which any assignment could appear in the searchable USPTO database.

Timeline diagram, NPE/troll-pattern signals: not generated — there is no assignment chain, no assignee entity, no correspondent of record, and no reel/frame to evaluate. A 19th-century patent that expired in 1896 cannot have participated in the modern NPE/privateering market.

Verdict

Insufficient data — the only supportable verdict under the rubric. The USPTO Assignment Center has no records for US217255 (searchable coverage begins August 1980; the patent expired 1896), Google Patents shows no assignment legal events, and no reel/frame, assignee entity, or correspondent name exists to analyze. The absence of records affirmatively indicates the patent was never conveyed to any NPE, aggregator, or defensive pool on the modern record; it expired in 1896 with no electronic assignment trail whatsoever.

Verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 217255 returns no records; USPTO database coverage confirmed at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Assignment%20Database%20Webinar_20150120.pdf).

I'll research US patent 217255 and its citation context. Let me start with several searches.

The first search only surfaced the unrelated WO 2019/217255 (which I will exclude per the literal-identifier rule). Let me search specifically for the USPTO/Google Patents citation records for US217255A.

Search results: USPTO record for 217255

USPTO database status. Live-web searching for "217255" in USPTO/patent databases surfaced no USPTO record distinct from the Google Patents mirror of US217255A that you supplied as the authoritative text (the only "217255" hits otherwise are WO 2019/217255 — an unrelated PCT microbial-inoculant application — and FDA ANDA No. 217255 in Veloxis v. Accord, both excluded under the literal-identifier rule). I therefore treat the supplied record (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US217255](/patent/US217255)/en) as ground truth.

What the citation record shows. The authoritative full text of US217255A contains no formal citation list of any kind:

• No "Patent Citations" (backward references) — consistent with 1879 practice, when USPTO patents did not print cited prior art on the face of the patent.
• No "Non-Patent Citations."
• No "Cited By" (forward-citation) list appears in the fetched record.
• The only related-document enumeration is the machine-generated "Similar Documents" block, which Google Patents produces by classification/keyword similarity — it is not an examiner citation list.

Consequence: Strictly speaking, US217255A has zero formal, verifiable "patent citations" to analyze. What can be analyzed is the closest analogous art that the record itself surfaces (the "Similar Documents" list) plus the temporal/claim analysis you requested. I have not fabricated full-text descriptions of references I could not retrieve; the descriptions below are limited to what the authoritative record discloses (titles and dates).

Statutory caveat (important): US217255A is governed by the Patent Act of 1870 (Rev. Stat. § 4886), not the modern § 102. The modern anticipation framework is anachronistic here — this is an academic mapping exercise. For that exercise I use the effective filing date of May 28, 1878 as the reference point and assess references under the structural logic of pre-AIA § 102(a)/(b): a reference that was patented or published before May 28, 1878 is the candidate prior art. References published after that date cannot anticipate unless their applications were filed earlier (filing dates are not disclosed in the metadata I have) — flagged below where relevant.

Relevant claims for the anticipation analysis

• Claim 1: Two links (C, D), each having (i) a straight portion (e), (ii) an opening (f) in that straight portion, and (iii) the other parts twisted "substantially as shown," the twist being what allows the links to be manipulated during baling and brought to lie on the plane of the band ends at the union.
• Claim 2: Two links (C, D), each having a straight portion (e) and a twisted portion "substantially as shown," operable to be brought on a plane with the band ends — without the opening (f) limitation (matching the specification's disclosure of an opening-less variant used in the bend-over-and-turn-under mode).

To anticipate either claim under § 102, a single reference must disclose both links of the pair, the straight portion, the twisted portion, and (for claim 1) the opening (f), arranged so the links lie flat in the plane of the band at the joint.

Prior-art candidates (from the record's "Similar Documents" — not examiner citations)

A. Pre-filing references — genuine § 102(a)/(b) candidates (published before 1878-05-28)

B. Post-filing publications — NOT § 102(a)/(b) prior art on their face

These are listed in the record but published after the 1878-05-28 filing date, so they cannot anticipate unless (unknowable from the metadata) their applications were filed before that date (which could, in theory, make them § 102(a)-type "patented by others" art under R.S. § 4886/ pre-AIA § 102(e)):

• US207749A — "Improvement in bale-ties," published 1878-09-03 (filing date unknown — cannot rule out pre-1878-05-28 filing)
• US211926A — "Improvement in bale-ties," published 1879-02-04 (filing date unknown)
• US216997A — "Improvement in wire bale-ties," published 1879-07-01 (filing date unknown)
• US220021A (1879-09-30), US220235A (1879-10-07), US220319A "bag-ties" (1879-10-07), US230313A (1880-07-20), US239093A "Bale-tie" (1881-03-22), US273926A (1883-03-13), US299064A (1884-05-20), US305569A (1884-09-23), US662558A "Wire-bale-band fastening" (1900-11-27) — all plainly later; useful as forward evidence of the field's trajectory, not as anticipation references.

Which references most plausibly anticipate which claim — analyst's read

• Claim 1 (straight portion + opening f + twisted remainder): The claim's novelty concentrates on the combination of a straight, slotted (opening f) portion with a twisted body that rotates the joint flat. The strongest anticipation candidates are the three 1878 bale-tie patents filed/issued within weeks of Agnew's application — US203444A (May 7, 1878), US202242A (Apr. 9, 1878), US201003A (Mar. 5, 1878) — because a crowded, rapidly evolving art space in the same exact months makes it most likely one of them already embodied slotted, twisted link pairs. If none of those discloses the opening-f-in-straight-portion feature, the earlier 1873–1877 bale-tie patents (US138484A through US196699A) become relevant only if they show twisted links, which their titles alone cannot establish.
• Claim 2 (straight portion + twisted portion, no opening): Structurally broader than claim 1 on the opening limitation, so every reference named in group A is at least a candidate for claim 2 — but each must still disclose the straight-plus-twisted link geometry and the flat-lying operational result. The older patents in the family (US161074A, US163133A, US170589A, US174730A, US174707A, US175752A, US148423A, US138484A) become more plausible against claim 2 than against claim 1 precisely because claim 2 drops the opening requirement.
• Honest limitation: I could not retrieve the full text of any of these references (all searches returned empty or the excluded WO/ANDA collisions). An anticipation conclusion under § 102 requires an element-by-element comparison of each reference's figures and specification against claims 1 and 2. Based on available metadata, I can rank candidates but cannot certify anticipation for any single reference.

Bottom line

1. US217255A has no formal citations — no backward references printed on the 1879 patent, and no forward "Cited By" list in the authoritative record. There is, strictly, no "each patent citation for 217255" to enumerate.
2. The most relevant prior art is the cluster of pre-May-28-1878 "bale-tie" patents Google's similarity engine associates with it — led by US203444A, US202242A, and US201003A (all published in the two months before Agnew filed) — with the 1873–1877 bale-tie family (US138484A, US148423A, US161074A, US163133A, US170589A, US174707A, US174730A, US175752A, US185959A, US196699A) as secondary candidates.
3. Claim 1 (slotted straight portion) is most at risk from the three 1878 references; claim 2 (no slot) is at risk from the broader family — but confirming any § 102 anticipation requires retrieving and comparing the full specifications, which were not accessible in this search pass.
4. Mootness caveat: the patent expired in 1896; the § 102 analysis is historical only, and under the law actually in force in 1879 (R.S. § 4886) rather than the modern statute the question presupposes.

The initial searches surfaced several period bale-tie patents. I need to verify content of the specific "Similar Documents" references that predate the Agnew filing date (1878-05-28) and locate art disclosing twisted link geometry. Running additional targeted searches.

Obviousness Analysis — US 217255A ("Improvement in bale-ties," Agnew, issued 1879-07-08)

0. Scope and evidence-base caveats (read first)

Prior-art record available. The user message references a "Prior Art section of this page," but no such section appears in the materials supplied to me. The closest on-page artifact is the "Similar Documents" listing on the Google Patents record for US217255A, which enumerates 25 bale-tie/bag-tie patents from 1873–1900. I supplemented that metadata with live-web retrieval of several period specifications. Because the search tool reached its step limit, I could verify full text for only some of the similar-document numbers. Unverified by full text (title/date only, per Google Patents metadata): US138484A, US148423A, US161074A, US163133A, US170589A, US174707A, US174730A, US175752A, US185959A, US196699A, US201003A, US202242A, US203444A. I do not attribute teachings to those unverified numbers and say so explicitly where relevant.

§ 103 is an anachronism for this patent — flagged. 35 U.S.C. § 103 was enacted in 1952; the USPTO in 1879 examined Agnew's application under the 1870 Act's novelty/utility regime with the Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1851) "invention" standard applied by courts. The following is therefore a hypothetical modern § 103 analysis (as the task requests), applying the Graham v. John Deere framework with a prior-art cutoff of the effective filing date, May 28, 1878. Any reference issued after that date (e.g., US207749A 1878-09-03; US211926A 1879-02-04; US216997A 1879-07-01; US220021A/US220235A/US220319A 1879; US230313A 1880; US239093A 1881; US273926A 1883; US299064A 1884; US305569A 1884; US662558A 1900) is not § 103 prior art and is used only as corroboration of the state of the art, never as a ground.

Reference-character caveat carried over. The Google OCR renders links "C D" as "0 D" and straight portion "e" as "0"/"6." I use the claim text's own identifiers (C, D, e, f) as authoritative, per the prior summary.

1. Claim scope (brief; builds on the prior summary)

• Claim 1: Two links C, D, each having a straight portion e carrying an opening f; the other parts of each link are twisted "substantially as shown"; the twisting makes the links operable so that they can be manipulated (band end inserted edgewise through f and the link turned within the loop, or band end bent back over e) and then brought on a plane with the ends of the band at the union.
• Claim 2: The same two links with straight portion e and a twisted portion, without requiring opening f (matching the specification's statement that links "may be constructed without the opening f," using the bend-back-over-e mode only).

One flag on the prior summary: claim 2 omits the opening-f limitation and is arguably structurally broader than claim 1, not narrower, notwithstanding that its only disclosed mode omits f. This does not change the obviousness outcome below.

Functional/result language ("operated … brought on a plane with the ends of the band") is the patent's own statement of the intended benefit — a flat-lying, non-projecting union at the bale surface — which was a well-recognized design goal in this crowded art.

2. Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)

A circa-1878 designer/mechanic in the bale-and-hoop fastening trade — a manufacturer of cotton/hay bale-ties, hoop-iron connections, or wire baling hardware — familiar with sheet-metal and wire forming, press operation in baling, and the economics of cheap, reusable, non-slipping band unions. The field was exceptionally crowded by 1878: the "Similar Documents" list alone shows at least a dozen bale-tie patents in the three years before Agnew's filing (1875–1878), and the contemporaneous Digest of cotton bale-ties of United States patents (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Digest_of_cotton_bale-ties_of_United_States_patents_%28IA_digestofcottonba00sins%29.pdf) catalogs continuous bale-tie patenting from 1856 onward. The PHOSITA is therefore an ordinary mechanic in a mature, competitive art, not an inventor of unusual creativity.

3. Verified prior-art references and their teachings

References with full text verified via live web retrieval (URLs cited; all pre-date 1878-05-28 unless noted):

• Pope, US195,164A, "Improvement in Bale-Ties," issued 1877-09-11 (improvement on his own US189,258A of 1877-04-03) — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/b0/e5/71/40f0c3566c1fcf/[US195164](/patent/US195164).pdf. The single most damaging reference. Pope discloses a two-member bale-tie: member B is a plate with a transverse slot b through which one band end passes, and hook-recesses b¹; member A has a slot a³ for the other band end and side lugs a, and "the member A is made with a twisted part, a², between the end with which the band engages and the side lugs… so as to impart to the metallic band a slight twist… in a direction to force the lugs a to the bottoms of the recesses." Pope expressly generalizes: "the same result would follow if the member B were made with a twisted portion… or both members A and B might be made with a twist or wind between the points of the band attachment, the essential feature being that one or both of the points to which the band is attached shall be set angularly to the locking parts." This is a direct, pre-filing teaching of a link-like bale-tie member with a band-receiving opening in a straight portion and a twisted body portion, including the express suggestion that both members may carry twists.
• McComb (reissue), No. 4,993, issued 1872-07-16 (reissue of No. 15,142 of 1856) — claim text verified in the Digest PDF (page 2): "A slotted link, in combination with the hooked ends of metallic ties… for the purpose of keeping them in place," with the ends united "by a sidewise motion." Earliest verified art of a link joining band ends that hook into it — the genus to which Agnew's links C, D belong. A link member with an opening receiving the band end is old.
• Knipscheer, US202,552A, "Improvement in Bale-Ties," issued 1878-04-16 — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/66/8e/78/d96619f70a6f5c/[US202552](/patent/US202552).pdf. Open link A joining double-loop wire ends; the patentee admits: "I am aware that connecting-links like the one I have described are old; and, further, I am aware that such links have been used in bale-ties." An inventor's own admission that link-based bale ties were conventional immediately before Agnew's filing.
• Goldsmith, US178,762A, "Improvement in Bale-Ties," issued 1876-06-13 — https://biblio.clemson.edu/scpatimages/index.php?pn=[178762](/patent/178762). Strap-iron binder whose ends carry loops b, engaged over bars of a flat W-shaped buckle plate; the plate lies flat under the band; lugs/stops prevent the looped ends from being thrown off by bale pulsation. Teaches: flat-lying buckle-type union of looped band ends, and the pulsation-disengagement problem Agnew's twist also addresses.
• France, US187,118A, issued 1877-02-06 (assignor to Washburn & Moen) — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/39/c9/80/a5009a6aaf3133/[US187118](/patent/US187118).pdf. Wire tie whose end loops C, D are "carried back and twisted about the main wire," with loop C sized so that in baling it "has to be canted sidewise a little" to engage loop D, then lies flat and resists pulsation. Teaches out-of-plane manipulation during baling followed by a flat, secure engagement — the same operational idea as Agnew's "turned to receive the band, then changed to the plane of the band."
• Maury, US187,161A, issued 1877-02-06 (same assignee) — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/1b/a7/4b/8b4553641a08b8/[US187161](/patent/US187161).pdf. Rod connector with ends "sprung or bent laterally" into hooks receiving twisted wire-end loops; both loops pre-formed before baling and slipped on laterally. Another instance of pre-filing angular/lateral offset in a connector to enable fast engagement.
• Kilmer, US175,711A, issued 1876-04-04 — loop-hook wire tie; Snyder, US178,196A, issued 1876-05-30 (stamped plate tie: band end "passed over the part B… through the first slot a, and turned backward under the same"); Cook, US138,481A, issued 1873-05-06 (sliding loop with notches and hook end) — each shows band-end-over-bar or bend-back engagement modes of the type Agnew describes when opening f is absent.

4. Graham step: differences between the claims and the closest art

Claim 1 over Pope 195,164. Pope already discloses: (i) two metallic tie members; (ii) each member having an opening/slot through which a band end engages (slot b in B; slot a³ in A); (iii) a straight portion in each member adjacent the band attachment; and (iv) a twisted body portion in at least member A, with the express teaching that "both members… might be made with a twist." The residual differences are (a) claim 1's specific geometry — a straight portion e with opening f in both links and all remaining parts twisted "as shown"; and (b) the claimed function of bringing the whole link into the plane of the band ends (Pope's twist instead imparts angularity to the band to force lugs into recesses). Those differences are matters of degree, orientation, and stated purpose in a member set Pope already says can be twisted on both sides.

Claim 2 over Pope 195,164 (and over McComb 4,993 in combination). Claim 2's structure — links C, D each with a straight portion e and a twisted portion — is squarely within Pope's disclosure, which expressly permits both members to carry twists "between the points of the band attachment" and the locking parts. McComb 4,993 supplies the complementary element of band ends hooked into/over a slotted link, and Goldsmith 178,762 / Snyder 178,196 supply the bend-over-straight-bar mode used when opening f is omitted.

What the cited art does not verifiably show (the genuine novelty residue, if any): a pair of links each having an opening f located in the straight portion through which a looped band end is inserted edgewise, the link then rotated within the loop so that f sits "midway between the two edges" of the band. Pope's slots receive flat band ends, not looped band ends edgewise. This is the narrowest concrete feature of claim 1's preferred embodiment. But the claim is not limited to the edgewise-loop mode — it also covers the bend-over mode the specification describes for links with opening f, and claim 1's operative language ("operated as hereinbefore described") sweeps in both modes.

5. Combinations and motivation to combine

Combination A (against Claim 1): Pope US195,164A + McComb Re. 4,993 (or Goldsmith US178,762A)

• Reason to combine. The art's persistent problems, documented across Pope, Goldsmith, France, and Maury, were (1) accidental disengagement under bale pulsation/expansion, (2) careless or slow engagement in the press, and (3) ties that project from the bale surface. Pope's entire disclosure is a solution to (1)–(2) via a twist that self-seats the locking lugs under band tension; he says the twist's "essential feature" is setting the band-attachment point "angularly to the locking parts," and that one or both members may be twisted. McComb 4,993 and Goldsmith 178,762 supply the flat-lying link/buckle geometry with band ends that hook into or loop over the member. A PHOSITA seeking a cheap, flat, self-seating two-part union would take Pope's twist teaching and apply it to the slotted-link configuration of McComb/Goldsmith — producing exactly the claimed link pair, each with a straight slotted portion and a twisted body, brought flat against the band ends. No new principle is required; the twist is applied to a known member shape to solve a known problem (Pope: preventing insecure seating of the joint), with a predictable result.
• Express suggestion in the reference. Pope literally suggests twisting both members between band attachment and locking parts — the structural heart of claim 1.

Combination B (against Claim 2): Pope US195,164A alone, or + Snyder US178,196A / Goldsmith US178,762A

• Claim 2 (straight portion + twisted portion, no opening f) is even closer to Pope, and its disclosed bend-back-over-e mode is old (Snyder 178,196: band end "turned backward under" a bar; Goldsmith 178,762: looped ends over bars; McComb: hooked ends into a slotted link). Once the twist geometry of Pope is admitted, adding a straight bar over which a band end is bent (Snyder/Goldsmith/McComb) is an obvious substitution. The result — a link with a straight bend-over portion and twisted body that lies on the plane of the band — is a predictable combination of known means.

Combination C (corroborating obviousness of the mode of operation): France US187,118A / Maury US187,161A

• Both teach that connector geometry may be set out of the band plane during engagement ("canted sidewise," "sprung or bent laterally") and then rest flat/in-plane under tension — the precise operational rationale Agnew's specification gives for the twist. These references independently motivate a designer to offset/twist connector parts to enable fast, secure, flat engagement; they corroborate that the "operated and brought on a plane" function was a routine design objective, not an unexpected result.

Motivation summary (articulated, per KSR)

1. Known problem: pulsation-induced disengagement and insecure seating of two-part bale-tie unions (Pope, Goldsmith, France all address it).
2. Known solution in the same field: twisting/angularly setting the body of a tie member between its band-attachment point and its locking parts (Pope 195,164, expressly extensible to both members); lateral springing/offset in connectors (Maury 187,161); out-of-plane canting of loops during engagement (France 187,118).
3. Known substrate: links joining hooked or looped band ends (McComb Re. 4,993; Knipscheer 202,552, admitting links were old); flat buckle-plate unions (Goldsmith 178,762); bend-back-over-bar unions (Snyder 178,196).
4. Predictable result: combining the twist teaching with the link substrate yields a two-link tie whose straight, opening-carrying portions receive the band ends and whose twisted bodies let the union be brought flat on the plane of the band — exactly the function stated in claims 1 and 2. Nothing in the record suggests the twist conferred unexpected results, solved a long-felt need others had failed to solve (the crowded 1870s art shows the opposite — a design race), or was met with skepticism. No secondary considerations of record favor patentability.

6. Secondary considerations

None identified. The record contains no commercial-success, copying, licensing, or long-felt-need evidence for US217255A, and the prior sections confirm no litigation or PTAB activity in which such evidence might have surfaced. The proliferation of near-simultaneous, closely related bale-tie patents (including the "Similar Documents" cluster of 1878–1879) is affirmative evidence of a crowded field solved by routine design variation rather than a breakthrough.

7. Bottom-line conclusion

Under a hypothetical 35 U.S.C. § 103 analysis with a 1878-05-28 cutoff:

• Claim 1 would very likely be held obvious over Pope US195,164A (twisted tie members, both-members-may-be-twisted teaching, band-receiving slots in each member) in view of McComb Re. 4,993 or Goldsmith US178,762A (slotted/flat link unions receiving band ends), with the operational mode corroborated by France US187,118A and Maury US187,161A. The only arguable novelty residue — a looped band end inserted edgewise through an opening in the straight portion — is a disclosed preferred mode, not a claim limitation distinguishing the combination, and the claim's own "operated as hereinbefore described" language covers the conventional bend-over mode as well.
• Claim 2 is obvious over Pope US195,164A alone (or in combination with Snyder US178,196A / Goldsmith US178,762A for the bend-over mode), since it omits the opening-f limitation and its straight-plus-twisted link structure is squarely within Pope's express disclosure.
• Both claims recite combinations of known elements (links, band-receiving openings, twisted/angularly-set connector bodies) performing their known functions (fast, secure, flat-lying union of bale-band ends) with predictable results, in a crowded art where the identical problems and solution-types were already documented before Agnew's filing.

Confidence caveats. (1) I could not retrieve full text for roughly a dozen of the Google "Similar Documents" numbers before the search limit; several of those (e.g., US185959A, US196699A, US201003A, US202242A, US203444A, all 1877–May 1878) could contain even closer art, and one search for US138484A surfaced only the near-number US138481A (Cook), which I have flagged rather than auto-corrected. (2) The 1879 examiner found patentable novelty, and I have no prosecution file to test what art was considered; a modern § 103 finding is a distinct inquiry from the 1879 examination. (3) The genuine, narrowly-scoped feature of claim 1's preferred embodiment (edgewise insertion of a looped end through opening f with the opening ending "midway between the two edges") is the strongest surviving argument against obviousness of claim 1, and I did not locate a pre-1878 reference disclosing that exact manipulation — I state this as a search-based negative, not a certified one.