US RE8904

I'll run targeted searches for this specific reissue number.

US RE8904 — verified findings

Searches run: Google Patents/Patents full text for "RE8904", "RE8904 ejector", "8,904 reissue Hugh Coll", and a CAFC 2026 docket sweep for "RE8904". No USPTO or CAFC result returned any document bearing this number. The only substantive retrieval was the Google Patents record itself plus 19th-century litigation material that concerns a different reissue (see "Related-but-different" below). Everything below is grounded in those sources; where I have no authority I say so.

Bibliographic data (from https://patents.google.com/patent/USRE8904/en)

The specification's own heading reads: "Specification forming part of Letters Patent No. 110,205, dated December 20, 1870; Reissue No. 8,904, dated September 23, 1879; application filed August 30, 1879." So RE8904 is a reissue of the 1870 Coll patent, which was itself an improvement on Coll's siphon pump of June 8, 1869 (No. 90,930 per the 1882 litigation record).

Specification summary (in lieu of an abstract)

The reissue describes a double-head steam siphon pump / water ejector in which:

• the outer head a is conventional, with the water-inlet opening b and an opening for the steam-injection pipe c;
• the inner head/shell d has had its base or blunt end cut off at or near its broadest part, giving a large unobstructed opening at its rear, with a bore diminishing toward its forward end d;
• d is cast integral with outer head a via radial arms a;
• the inner head is intended especially for bilge-water and tan-vat work, because the wide opening tolerates tan-bark and solids without clogging;
• interchangeable nozzle-pieces are described: nozzle m (Fig. 1) abuts the forward end of inner head d as a smooth continuation and has a somewhat contracted throat — for lifting water to considerable height with little steam. An alternative nozzle n (Fig. 2) has a smaller throat and does not abut d, leaving an annular space so water also flows from between the two heads — for raising a larger body of water to less height with the same steam;
• stated advantage: the inner shell surrounds and protects the steam jet, so it condenses less rapidly than in prior ejectors; the shell acts as a break-water deflecting inflow to the back of head a and turning it to enter the inner head parallel to the steam jet; the forward end of the outer chamber is closed, so all discharge passes through inner head d.

Independent claims (plain language)

There are exactly two claims, both independent; the reissue contains no dependent claims. Wording is quoted as it appears (OCR artifacts preserved, not corrected):

1. Claim 1 — "A water-ejector having an inner head or shell which is open at its rear end, so as to leave an unobstructed opening thereto, and through which all the water discharged from the ejector passes, substantially as and for the purposes described."
   • Plain language: an ejector whose inner shell has an open (unobstructed) rear end, and which is the sole discharge path — no water leaves the device except through that inner shell.
2. Claim 2 — "A water-ejector provided with an inner head, having a large unobstructed opening at its rear end, which extends partially across the induction-opening, substantially as and for the purposes described."
   • Plain language: same open-rear-end inner head, further required to extend part-way across the water-induction opening, functioning as the break-water/deflector described in the specification. This is the claim pointed at the anti-clogging and flow-directing structure.

Note: neither claim recites the nozzle-pieces m/n, nor the radial arms, nor the specific "all discharge" feature of claim 1's preamble beyond claim 1 itself — those remain only in the specification.

CAFC / 2026 docket sweep — negative result

• I found no CAFC docket, appeal, or 2026 proceeding involving RE8904. This is expected: the patent is from 1879; the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit did not exist (est. 1982), and by any reasonable date computation a patent issued September 23, 1879 has long expired. I cannot prove a universal negative, but no search surfaced anything, and I would treat any "RE8904 CAFC 2026" hit as a false positive.

Related-but-different document (do not conflate)

The searches did surface J. B. Sheriff & Son v. A. Fulton's Son & Co., 12 F. 136 (C.C.W.D. Pa. 1882) — https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F/0012/0012.f.0136.html — which concerns reissue No. 9,199 (RE9199), issued to Hugh Coll May 18, 1880, application filed March 13, 1880, on the same original patent No. 110,205. That is not RE8904 and its holding does not attach to RE8904. Two points from that case are nevertheless informative context, and I flag them as context rather than as findings about RE8904:

• The original 110,205 claim 1, as quoted by the court, read: "The inner head, d, open at its rear end so as to leave an unobstructed opening around the steam-injection pipe for the passage of such pieces of solid matter as may be brought up by the water, such inner head, d, being connected to the outer head, a, by means of radial arms, a, all arranged substantially as described." The RE8904 claims quoted above are worded differently (they omit the "around the steam-injection pipe" and "radial arms" limitations), which is consistent with RE8904 being a broadening/rewording reissue — but I have not verified the original 110,205 text directly, so treat this comparison as tentative.
• The court held a nine-year reissue delay unreasonable where the original claim was enlarged, invalidating RE9199. Whether the same reasoning was ever applied to RE8904, and whether RE8904 was surrendered and superseded by RE9199, I do not know — I found no record of surrender or of any adjudication of RE8904. Do not assume RE8904 was independently litigated or validated.

Explicit uncertainties

• No assignee or assignment data exists in the record I retrieved; ownership history (beyond the Sheriff litigation over a different reissue) is unknown.
• No abstract, no CPC/IPC classification, and no examiner/citation record were available for a patent of this vintage.
• Claim text is OCR-derived; the underlying PDF (Download PDF link on the Google Patents page) should be consulted before quoting claim language in any legal filing.

I'll run targeted litigation searches for this exact patent number.

Initial searches returned nothing specific. Let me run more targeted queries.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent RE8904 ("Improvement in Ejectors," Hugh Coll)

Bottom line

No litigation is known — none, in any forum, in any era — involving U.S. Patent RE8904. I searched the sources you named plus the general web, and I am reporting a verified negative rather than a thin positive. There is no district court case, no CAFC appeal, no ITC investigation, no PTAB proceeding, and no 19th‑century circuit court equity suit that names RE8904 as the patent in suit.

I want to be precise about the distinction you drew, because it is the whole answer: I found one 19th‑century infringement suit in this patent family, and it is not on RE8904. Reporting it as RE8904 litigation would be exactly the auto-correct/merge error your instructions prohibit.

---

Search results by source

Two other queries returned zero results outright ("RE8904" patent litigation; "RE8904" OR "8,904" reissue Coll ejector lawsuit) — i.e., the literal identifier produces no litigation footprint anywhere indexed.

---

Case table (as requested)

Zero rows. There is no plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, or filing date to report, because no such case exists in any searchable record.

---

The near-miss, explicitly labeled as NOT RE8904

Why this is not an RE8904 case, stated plainly: the bill charged infringement of RE9,199, and the court's holding attaches to RE9,199. RE9,199 and RE8904 are two separate reissues of the same 1870 original (110,205). The number 9,199 must not be read as, or collapsed into, 8,904. No case number, filing date, or disposition for any RE8904 suit can be derived from Sheriff.

I also note for completeness that an earlier query surfaced Scaife v. Fulton, 21 F. Cas. 616 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1876), which concerns Letters Patent No. 92,718 to George W. Glass — a different patentee entirely. It is not RE8904 litigation and it is not even in this family.

---

Why the null result is structural, not a search failure

1. The patent is long expired. RE8904's term runs from the original grant, U.S. 110,205 (December 20, 1870). On the pre‑1995 seventeen‑years‑from‑grant rule, that puts expiry at or about December 20, 1887. No present‑day case can assert it.
2. Pre‑1924 federal equity records are sparsely digitized. If an RE8904 suit was ever filed in 1880–1887, it would have been docketed in the circuit court's handwritten equity minute books, and its opinion (if any) printed only if reported in the Federal Reporter or Federal Cases. My searches of the digitized Federal Reporter volume 12 and the general corpus found no RE8904 caption. I cannot prove a universal negative for that era — the honest statement is that no such case is indexed or retrievable, not that none was ever filed.
3. No modern vehicle exists. CAFC did not exist before 1982; there is no 2026 docket. See the PTAB section above for the parallel zero result on AIA trials.

---

Flagged contradiction in the previously generated sections

Per your cross‑reference instruction, one prior section contradicts another on a date that matters for any "is it still enforceable" question:

• The PTAB and Assignment history sections state RE8904 expired on or about December 20, 1887 (17 years from the original 110,205 grant).
• The Obviousness section states the patent "expired (17‑year term) on September 23, 1896" — i.e., 17 years from the reissue grant.

These cannot both be correct. The correct rule is that a reissue expires with the original patent, so the 1887‑12‑20 date is the right one and the 1896 date in the Obviousness section is an error. It does not change the litigation answer (zero either way), but it should be corrected before this file is used.

---

Recommendation

If someone has told you there is "litigation on RE8904," require the case caption and docket number. No such case appears in PACER, the Unified Patents caselist, CourtListener, or the Federal Reporter. The only real Coll ejector litigation is Sheriff on RE9,199 (12 F. 136), and any narrative that fuses the two reissue numbers is a fabrication or a transcription error, not a citation.

I'll verify the structured ODP data against public sources before writing anything up.

The search confirms all "890" hits are unrelated modern patents (Uniloc's 7,535,890, Aspen's 7,780,890, etc.). One hit is directly relevant — a 19th-century infringement suit on a Coll reissue. Let me pin that down.

PTAB proceedings on USRE8904 ("Improvement in ejectors")

Bottom line up front: The USPTO Open Data Portal returns zero AIA trial proceedings for this patent, and my independent search of PTAB dockets, USPTO PTAB decisions, and general web sources surfaced nothing to contradict that. There is no IPR, PGR, or CBM to describe.

---

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0 (active: 0 / claims invalidated: 0 / claims sustained: 0 / settled: 0 / institution denied: 0). The structured ODP data states verbatim that there are "no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest," and my searches confirm it — every "890" hit in the PTAB corpus belongs to a different patent (e.g., Uniloc's U.S. 7,535,890 in IPR2017-01523; Aspen Aerogels' U.S. 7,780,890 in IPR2017-00152; the LED-driver U.S. 6,586,890 in IPR2015-01292). The defensive posture is not "hardened by surviving IPRs" and it is not "claims canceled" — it is "no PTAB history exists, because this patent has been expired for roughly 139 years." A demand letter citing RE8904 is not a basis for a licensing negotiation; it is a basis for a declaratory-judgment action and potentially a fee motion.

No proceedings to enumerate

I will not manufacture proceeding numbers. There are no IPR####-#####, PGR####-#####, or CBM####-##### captions to list, so the per-proceeding template does not apply. Instead, here is the reason the count is zero — which is itself the most useful thing a defendant can know.

---

Why the absence is structural, not accidental

1. The patent is long expired. RE8904 is a reissue of original Letters Patent No. 110,205 (dated 1870-12-20), reissue application filed 1879-08-30, reissue granted 1879-09-23. A reissue carries the unexpired term of the original — under the law then in force, seventeen years from 1870-12-20, i.e., expiry on or about 1887-12-20. The Google Patents "prior art date" of 1879-08-30 is the reissue filing date, not a live term. There is no enforceable claim.

2. Statutory ineligibility of the AIA trial vehicles.

• PGR requires a patent with an effective filing date on or after 2013-03-16 (35 U.S.C. §§ 321–329). RE8904's effective filing date is 1879 (or 1870). Categorically unavailable.
• CBM required a financial-services "covered business method" patent, and the transitional program sunset on 2020-09-16 (AIA § 18(a)(3)(A)); Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google LLC, 841 F.3d 995 (Fed. Cir. 2016) already excluded non-financial mechanical patents. A steam siphon-pump ejector was never CBM-eligible.
• IPR is technically freestanding of filing date (35 U.S.C. § 311) — the Board does occasionally institute on very old, expired patents. But there is no economic predicate to fund one here, and no accused product can infringe an 1887-expired claim.

3. The identifier quirk that will break naive searches. Google Patents renders this record as USRE8904E, while the printed face of the document reads Reissue No. 8,904 (and the ODP/spec styled it "Reissue No. 8,904, dated September 23, 1879"). The trailing "E" is a Google Patents artifact, not part of the USPTO identifier. Auto-correcting USRE8904E to USRE8904 for search purposes is fine; treating them as different patents is not. Similarly, do not confuse this record with USRE9199 (granted 1880-05-18, "Ejector") — that is a second, separate reissue of the same original patent 110,205 issued to the same inventor, Hugh Coll. Both appear in the RE8904 "Similar Documents" family list alongside US110205A.

Nearest thing to an invalidity holding — and it is not PTAB

A reported 19th-century circuit-court decision, reprinted at 12 F. 136, adjudicated a Coll reissue of the same original patent. Per the retrieved excerpt, the suit was "upon reissued letters patent No. 9,199, issued to Hugh Coll May 18, 1880," with "the original letters patent, No. 110, 205 … issued to Coll December 20, 1870." The court examined the 1879/1880 reissue specification and held that it "set forth other advantages neither mentioned nor hinted at in the original specification, (No. 110,205)…" — i.e., new-matter concern of the classic reissue variety, the same § 251 defect modern litigants assert.

• Source text: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F/0012/0012.f.0136.pdf
• Caveat, stated plainly: the excerpt I retrieved begins mid-opinion and I could not confirm the case caption or the exact disposition from the retrieved text. I am not asserting a holding beyond what is quoted above. Also flag: this concerns RE9199, not RE8904 — do not cite it as an RE8904 invalidity holding without pulling the full opinion.

Notably, the RE8904 specification as reproduced in the authoritative full text does contain the "break-water" passage ("the rear open end of the inner head…acts as a break-water to deflect and turn the Water to the back part of the head a"), and claim 2 rests on that partial-extension geometry. Whether that language was new matter relative to the 1870 original is exactly the reissue question the 1880 court was grappling with. Treat as a research flag, not a conclusion — this text is OCR'd and I have not compared it against the 110,205 original.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: everything is UNTESTED at the PTAB, and everything is EXPIRED in fact. RE8904 carries two claims: claim 1 (an inner head/shell open at its rear end leaving an unobstructed opening, through which all water discharged from the ejector passes) and claim 2 (an inner head with a large unobstructed opening at its rear end extending partially across the induction-opening). Neither has ever been construed by the PTAB, because no petition was ever filed. There is no canceled-claim list to hand a defendant and no surviving-claim list to worry about — the claims died of old age on or about 1887-12-20.

Estoppel landscape: empty in both directions. 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches only to a petitioner that obtained an institution decision. No institution decision exists, so no petitioner is estopped, no privy is estopped, and no ground was ever "raised or reasonably could have been raised." Symmetrically, a defendant today forfeits nothing by not filing an IPR — there is no statutory bar to raise invalidity in district court. The complete invalidity arsenal remains open: § 102/§ 103 on the 1869–1879 ejector art (Coll's own U.S. 90,930 of 1869-06-08 and the 110,205 original are both printed publications), § 112 written-description/definiteness on the reissue specification, and the § 251 reissue-new-matter and recapture doctrines.

Pattern signals: none to read. No serial petitioner, no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) in the chain, no PTAB appeals to the Federal Circuit. This is not a "the troll keeps coming" fact pattern and not a "the patent has survived everything" fact pattern. It is the fact pattern of a museum piece. If anyone is threatening you with RE8904, the counter-posture is not a validity fight — it is a standing and justiciability fight, plus fee exposure for the asserting party.

---

Recommended next steps

1. If you have received a demand citing RE8904: do not engage on claim charts. State in writing that the patent expired on or about 1887-12-20 (reissue term of original U.S. 110,205, issued 1870-12-20) and that no enforceable claim exists. Preserve the letter — an assertion of an expired patent is strong evidence of bad faith in a § 285 fee motion or a state-law unfair-competition claim.
2. Verify the term independently before relying on my arithmetic. Pull the printed front page at https://patents.google.com/patent/USRE8904/en and the original at https://patents.google.com/patent/US110205A/en. The 17-years-from-issue rule applies to patents issued before 1995-06-08 (transitional URAA), so the 1887 expiry follows, but confirm the 110,205 issue date you're using is the one on the face of the document.
3. If you nonetheless need an invalidity record (e.g., for a DJ complaint covering a related, live patent in the alleged family): you may confirm the PTAB's zero result yourself at the PTAB E2E / PTAB API endpoint (https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/ or https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb) and check https://www.courtlistener.com for any 19th-century litigation record. Note that pre-1924 circuit-court decisions are sparsely digitized, so the 12 F. 136 opinion may not surface there.
4. Do not file an IPR. There is no live claim to invalidate, no accused product that can infringe, and no strategic upside; you would be paying to brief an 1879 steam siphon.
5. If a live, later patent is being asserted and someone tells you it is "related to RE8904": require the specific patent and application number. RE8904 has no AIA trial history, so any prior-art or estoppel narrative you are handed about "the IPR on the Coll patent" is fabricated.

I'll verify the assignment-record situation before writing anything.

Confirmed a key database limit — let me verify how far back assignment records go online and check for any corporate assignee on this patent.

Now let me check for any 19th-century assignment or corporate ownership of Coll's ejector patents, and litigation involving the reissue.

Inventors

Corroborating family data points, all naming the same individual as sole inventor:

• US 90,930 — granted June 8, 1869, "steam siphon pump or water elevator" (the parent disclosure cited in RE8904's own text: "the siphon-pump patented to me June 8, 1869"). Confirmed by the 1882 opinion in J. B. Sheriff & Son v. A. Fulton's Son & Co., 12 F. 136 (C.C.W.D. Pa. 1882) ("Coll's earlier letters patent, No. 90,930, dated June 8, 1869").
• US 110,205 — granted December 20, 1870, "Improvement in Ejectors." RE8904 is the reissue of this patent.
• US 143,884 — granted October 21, 1873, "Improvement in Water-Ejectors," naming Coll of Millvale borough, county of Allegheny, Pennsylvania.

Pattern note (relevant, but not a troll tell): Coll's residence moved from Millvale (Allegheny Co., 1873) to Black Hawk P.O. (Beaver Co., by 1879). Black Hawk was an oil-region post office in Beaver County — consistent with an independent machinist/inventor selling steam ejectors into oil-field and tannery service rather than an employee-inventor inside a corporation. There is no evidence at all of the "all inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months" pattern, because there was never a corporate assignee to depart from. The only real pattern here is a one-man inventor-owner who reissued his own patent to broaden it, and then asserted it — an individual patentee, not a portfolio holder.

Note: the two names printed on the RE8904 witness line — B. H. Whittlesey and Jno. K. Smith — are the closest 19th-century analog to a "correspondent of record." I could not verify whether either was a prosecuting attorney/agent or merely a signature witness; on 1870s patents that line typically mixes both roles. I am not treating either as an assignment correspondent — no assignment is recorded, and I have no evidence either filed any recording.

Original assignee

There is no original assignee. The patent issued to Hugh Coll as an individual.

• The authoritative full text supplies no "Assignee" field on the face of the reissue; the Google Patents Info block lists only Inventor: Hugh Coll (USRE8904E). No company, no co-owner, no percentage interest.
• The specification is in the first person throughout ("patented to me June 8, 1869," "I have devised," "my improvement"), and the claim preamble is "what I claim… is" with the signature "HUGH COLL" immediately following. That is the signature of an unassigned inventor-owner.
• Line of business: individual mechanical inventor in the western Pennsylvania oil/industrial belt, selling steam siphon pumps and water ejectors. He was manufacturing and commercializing the devices himself — the 1873 patent's specification shows him optimizing "the amount of material that is necessary in the construction of this class of siphon-pumps" and "forming the whole shell in one piece by casting," which is cost-of-manufacture language, not licensing language.
• Product embodying the claims: Coll's ejectors were actually built and sold. This is established not by marketing material but by the fact that competitors were manufacturing them and Coll sued: J. B. Sheriff & Son v. A. Fulton's Son & Co., 12 F. 136 (C.C.W.D. Pa. 1882), a patentee's own infringement action on the sibling reissue RE9,199 (granted May 18, 1880). Defendant A. Fulton's Son & Co. was, per the opinion, manufacturing the accused pumps — i.e., a real product market existed and Coll was an operating patentee asserting against actual competitors.
• Current status (as of 2026-09-27): Dissolved as a legal entity — indeed, Coll has been beyond legal process for well over a century, and the asset itself is long expired. Patents then ran 17 years from grant; US 110,205 was granted December 20, 1870, so RE8904's term ran only to December 20, 1887. The patented subject matter has been in the public domain for roughly 139 years. There is nothing left to assign, license, or assert.

Assignment timeline

No records found. This is the finding.

I must be explicit about what I did and did not do, because the answer to your question is a database-coverage answer rather than an evidentiary one:

1. The USPTO Patent Assignment Search / Assignment Center contains no records for US RE8,904. I could not execute a live query against assignmentcenter.uspto.gov from this environment, and I will not represent otherwise. What I can state with high confidence is the structural reason the result is necessarily empty: USPTO's own documentation states the assignment database "contains all recorded Patent Assignment information back to August 1980" (USPTO, Patent Assignment Database Webinar), and the bulk dataset is titled "Patent Assignment XML (1980 - Present)" with a stated temporal range of 1980-08-01 onward (data.gov). Corroborated independently: "This database tracks patent changes back to August 1980" (Caltech Library); "includes all recorded patent assignments submitted to the USPTO since August 1980" (Finnegan). RE8,904 issued September 23, 1879 — 101 years before the start of the database. The record is not missing; the coverage window it would fall in does not exist in this system.
2. Google Patents shows no legal-events / assignment entries for USRE8904 (link) — no reassignment, no security interest, no change-of-name. Consistent with (1), and consistent with the patent being an unassigned individual grant.
3. There are therefore no reel/frame numbers, no conveyance types, no assignors, no assignees, and no correspondents to report. I am not going to invent them. The "reel/frame" convention itself is an artifact of the post-1955 microfilm system that the modern PTAS database inherited — there is no reel/frame for an 1879 grant.
4. Where the pre-1980 chain would live, if you need it: pre-August-1980 assignments were recorded in bound liber volumes and later microfilm, indexed by inventor surname rather than patent number (the Library of Congress describes exactly this "Index of Sole Inventors" / "Irregular Transfers" scheme — see Records of Assignments at the Library of Congress / Internet Archive). Retrieval requires a manual search by the USPTO Assignment Recordation Branch (571-272-3350, aotw@uspto.gov) for a fee, or the paper/microfilm assignment digests. That is the only path to a definitive answer for this era, and it is outside both the Assignment Center and any NPE-tracked dataset.

One adjacent, properly-labeled data point (offered because it is real and citable, and explicitly not an RE8904 record): the 1882 caption "J. B. Sheriff & Son v. A. Fulton's Son & Co." indicates that the sibling reissue RE9,199 was, by 1882, in the hands of J. B. Sheriff & Son as complainant — i.e., a transfer, exclusive license, or grant of standing occurred somewhere in Coll's ejector family. That inference is from the case caption and complainant-side counsel entry in 12 F. 136, not from any recorded assignment instrument, and it attaches to RE9,199, not RE8904. I have no reel/frame for it and will not construct one. Counsel of record in that litigation were Bakewell & Kerr for complainants and M. D. Connelly for defendants — again, litigation counsel, not assignment correspondents.

---

Per your stop rule

You instructed: "If the Assignment Center has no records for this patent, say so plainly and stop after this section." Done — I stop here rather than manufacture the remaining headings.

For completeness only, and with no fabrication:

• Timeline diagram — not renderable. A Mermaid chain requires dated assignment events; the only defensible dates are the grant dates of the patent family (90,930 / 1869, 110,205 / 1870, 143,884 / 1873, RE8,904 / 1879, RE9,199 / 1880). Those are prosecution events, not ownership transfers, and drawing them as an ownership chain would misrepresent the record.
• NPE / troll-pattern signals 1–8 — all not present, and mostly not applicable. Every tell you listed (IP-holdings LLC suffixes, registered-agent service addresses, single-member Delaware/Texas LLCs, repeat recording attorney, cascading sub-24-month transfers, pre-litigation transfers, RPX/AST/LOT terminations, privateering) is an artifact of the post-1980 patent-transaction economy and of the PTAS record system that creates the evidence for them. Applying them to an 1879 individual grant with a 1887 expiry is anachronistic. Critically, signal 2 (known asserter) is affirmatively absent — Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock and the rest did not exist during this patent's life.
• Verdict: Insufficient data — and note this is a mild mislabel, since the true answer is stronger than "insufficient": the patent was owned by its individual inventor, was never held by an NPE, expired December 20, 1887, and is not searchable in Assignment Center because that system only reaches back to August 1980. It is not "unknown"; it is unassignable and unassertable.

Verify the null result yourself: USPTO Assignment Center → search patent number RE8904; mirrored at assignment.uspto.gov. If you need the true 1879–1887 chain, the Assignment Recordation Branch manual search described in point 4 above is the only route, and I'd recommend it rather than relying on any modern NPE-pattern database, none of which cover this era.

I'll research US patent RE8904 and its prior-art citations. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig into the family members and cited references.

1. Patent identified (literal)

Everything below is keyed to the literal identifier RE8904. Where I could not verify content, I say so rather than infer it.

---

2. Important preliminary: RE8904 has no examiner "citation" table

The authoritative record fetched for RE8904 does not contain a Patent Citations / References Cited section, and no Cited By section. This is normal for a reissue granted in 1879 — Google Patents has no OCR'd examiner citation data for pre‑1947 US grants, and the 1870-era Patent Office did not print "references cited" on the face of a reissue.

Consequently, the only two verifiable sources of "citations" for RE8904 are:

1. Intrinsic references in RE8904's own specification — the patentee expressly cites his earlier patents as the art he is improving upon. These are the legally meaningful references.
2. Google Patents' algorithmic "Similar Documents" list — a modern machine-similarity table, not an examiner citation list. It must not be represented as "prior art cited against RE8904."

I treat these two separately, because conflating them would misrepresent the record.

Statutory note: RE8904 issued in 1879, so 35 U.S.C. § 102 did not exist (enacted 1952). The pre‑1952 tests were Rev. Stat. § 4886 / § 4920 and the 1870 Patent Act ("not known or used by others … before the invention or discovery thereof, and not patented or described in any printed publication"). I map to § 102(a) equivalency because that is the convention requested, but flag the anachronism.

---

3. Category A — References expressly cited in RE8904 (intrinsic references)

These are the only references the patent itself names.

A‑1. US 90,930 — Coll, Steam siphon pump / water elevator, granted June 8, 1869

• Citation: Letters Patent No. 90,930, to Hugh Coll, June 8, 1869 (cited in RE8904: "the siphon-pump patented to me June 8, 1869").
• Date: granted June 8, 1869 — more than ten years before RE8904's Aug. 30, 1879 filing, and before the Dec. 20, 1870 original.
• *Description (from the rendered construction in J.B. Sheriff & Son v. A. Fulton's Son & Co., 12 F. 136 (C.C.W.D. Pa. 1882), which quotes the patent):* outer and inner pear-shaped hollow heads whose tapered ends form inner and outer discharge pipes; a steam-injection pipe screwed into the rear of the outer head and extending into the inner head, to which the inner head's rear end is screwed or cast fast; inlet openings made in the inner head back of the steam-injection pipe's discharge end; water may be discharged through either or both heads by closing the annular space between them. Claim is solely the combination of inner and outer pear-shaped heads with the injection pipe.
• Anticipation analysis under § 102: No § 102 anticipation of Claim 1 or Claim 2. Both RE8904 claims require the inner head to be open at its rear end with a large unobstructed opening and to be the sole discharge path ("all the water discharged from the ejector passes" through it). US 90,930 shows the opposite geometry: the inner head is secured around the injection pipe and is pierced only with discrete inlets/openings, and the patent expressly contemplates discharge through both heads. So it cannot disclose the "open at its rear end … unobstructed" limitation or the "all the water … passes" limitation.
• Role: Closest prior art; the acknowledged starting point for a § 103 obviousness attack, not an anticipation.

A‑2. US 110,205 — Coll, Improvement in ejectors, granted December 20, 1870 (the original of which RE8904 is the reissue)

• Citation: Letters Patent No. 110,205, dated December 20, 1870 — recited on the face of RE8904: "Specification forming part of Letters Patent No. 110,205, dated December 20, 1870. Reissue No. 8,904, dated September 23, 1879; application filed August 30, 1879."
• Description: Same disclosure as RE8904, i.e. the base of the inner pear-shaped head cut off at or near the broadest part so the inner head d is open at the base, connected in the casting to the outer head a by radial arms, for ejecting bilge-water and tan-vat liquor carrying tan-bark.
• Claim 1 of US 110,205 (as quoted in 12 F. 136): "The inner head, d, open at its rear end so as to leave an unobstructed opening around the steam-injection pipe for the passage of such pieces of solid matter as may be brought up by the water, such inner head, d, being connected to the outer head, a, by means of radial arms, a, all arranged substantially as described."
• Anticipation analysis: This is the parent of RE8904, therefore not prior art "against" it in the ordinary sense — a reissue is the same patent for the same invention. It is, however, the governing disclosure for enablement/identity and the closest textual comparison. Note the original claim was narrower: it required the radial-arm connection and framed the opening as being "around the steam-injection pipe." RE8904's two claims are broader — Claim 1 omits the radial arms entirely and claims the open inner head generically; Claim 2 adds the "extends partially across the induction-opening" feature. That broadening is the classic reissue-invalidity vulnerability (new matter / enlargement of claim after grant).
• Anticipation of claims: US 110,205 discloses the subject matter of both RE8904 claims, but because it is the same patent, it supports § 251-style reissue validity objections rather than § 102 anticipation.

A‑3. US RE9199 — Coll, Ejector, reissue granted May 18, 1880 (sibling reissue of US 110,205)

• Citation: Reissued Letters Patent No. 9,199, to Hugh Coll, May 18, 1880 (application filed March 13, 1880). Cited as the patent in suit in J.B. Sheriff & Son v. A. Fulton's Son & Co., 12 F. 136.
• Date: postdates RE8904's Sept. 23, 1879 grant — so it is not § 102 prior art against RE8904.
• Description & significance: Same original (US 110,205). The court in 12 F. 136 held that the RE9199 specification set forth advantages "neither mentioned nor hinted at in the original specification (No. 110,205)" — namely the inner head as a breakwater/dam that protects the steam jet and prevents rapid condensation, and the consequent gain in power for a small steam supply.
• Anticipation analysis: Not anticipatory (later date). But highly probative of a validity problem that equally afflicts RE8904, because RE8904 carries the same "breakwater / does not condense so rapidly / great power with a comparatively small amount of steam" language. If that functional advantage was absent from the Dec. 20, 1870 original, the corresponding RE8904 text is candidate new matter.

---

4. Category B — Google Patents "Similar Documents" list (algorithmic, NOT examiner citations)

Pre‑1879 items are potentially citable prior art on their own dates; all post‑1879 items are not § 102 prior art against RE8904 and are included only because the automated table lists them.

B‑1. Pre‑1879 items (eligible as § 102(a) references on their own dates)

B‑2. Post‑1879 items (NOT § 102 prior art to RE8904)

These are useful only as evidence of the state of the art / crowding of the ejector field after RE8904; they cannot anticipate it.

Also from the RE8904 record, Google's assigned prior-art keywords are: water, head, improvement, ejectors, ejector.

---

5. Claim-by-claim anticipation summary

No reference in any of the three sources discloses a third claim; RE8904 has exactly two claims.

---

6. Litigation evidence bearing on RE8904's prior art

J.B. Sheriff & Son v. A. Fulton's Son & Co., 12 F. 136 (C.C.W.D. Pa. 1882) — full text at law.resource.org and CourtListener. It is decided on the sibling reissue RE9199, not RE8904, but it construes the identical disclosure and is the single most useful secondary source on the prior art of this family. It establishes, verbatim, that:

• Coll's US 90,930 (June 8, 1869) is the acknowledged base art;
• US 110,205 (Dec. 20, 1870) is the original of the reissue chain;
• the "breakwater / anti-condensation" advantages were not in the original specification.

A separate, related line of ejector litigation from the same district — Scaife v. Fulton, 21 F. Cas. 616 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1876) — concerns Letters Patent No. 92,718 to George W. Glass, July 20, 1869, "improvement in ejectors." I flag this as adjacent art of the same era and district, obtained from a search of this family's case law; it is not listed as a citation in RE8904 and I am not asserting it as a citation. Its 1869 date would, if it were of record, make it § 102(a)-eligible.

---

7. Explicit limits on this answer

• No examiner citation list exists for RE8904. Any tool or database claiming to return "the patent citations for RE8904" is returning either the algorithmic "Similar Documents" table or nothing. I have labeled them accordingly and have not dressed the similarity table up as citations.
• I could not retrieve the full specifications/claims of US 57035 A, US 104986 A, US 159872 A, US 171592 A, US 196384 A, or any post‑1879 item. For those I report only publication number, date, and title as given in the RE8904 record, and I decline to assert specific § 102 anticipation at claim level. US 104986 A (1870‑07‑05, Improvement in ejectors) is the highest-value candidate for such a follow-up review.
• No US patent number other than those literally recited (90,930 / 110,205 / RE9199) has been substituted or auto-corrected. In particular I have kept RE8904, RE9199, RE9380, and RE10169 distinct and have not merged them.
• The 1879 grant predates 35 U.S.C. § 102; the § 102 labels used above are conventional mappings, not the governing contemporary statute.

I'll pull the pre-1879 references from the "Similar Documents" list, since only they can qualify as prior art against an 1879 reissue.

Good — I've surfaced something important (an intervening Coll patent). Let me try to pull the remaining pre-1879 references from the Similar Documents list.

Obviousness Analysis — US RE8904 ("Improvement in Ejectors," Hugh Coll)

0. Threshold problem with the question as posed

§ 103 did not exist in 1879. 35 U.S.C. § 103 was created by the Patent Act of July 19, 1952, and applies to applications filed on or after January 1, 1953. RE8904 issued September 23, 1879 and expired (17‑year term) on September 23, 1896. It is not, and never was, subject to § 103. In 1879 the governing test was the judge‑made "invention" requirement — Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. (11 How.) 248 (1850) (substitution of materials without new function is not invention); later crystallized (and then abandoned) in Cuno Eng'g Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84 (1941) ("flash of genius").

So the following is a reconstructive, hypothetical § 103 analysis applying the modern Graham/KSR framework to a 19th‑century reissue. I say this up front because the answer changes materially depending on which legal frame you use (see § 7).

There is a second threshold problem, specific to reissues, that dominates everything below: what is the critical date? A reissue takes the original patent's date for subject matter disclosed in the original (Rev. Stat. § 4916), but claims that enlarge the original — or rest on new matter — are exposed to intervening art. That distinction controls whether Coll's own 1873 patent is even available as a reference.

---

1. What actually counts as prior art here — and what does not

1.1 The "Similar Documents" list is not an examiner's citation record

For an 1879 patent there is no examiner citation record, no IDS, no CPC/IPC classification. The list on the Google Patents page is an algorithmically generated similarity list. Dated filtering is therefore mandatory before anything in it can be used as prior art. Applying that filter:

1.2 Two references not on the page's list, retrieved separately

I found two additional pre‑1879 documents whose disclosures I was able to read. Both are more probative than anything on the Similar Documents list, and I flag that they are outside the page's prior-art section:

• US90,930 (Coll), steam siphon pump, June 8, 1869 — the parent of the whole family. Disclosure recovered verbatim from J. B. Sheriff & Son v. A. Fulton's Son & Co., 12 F. 136 (C.C.W.D. Pa. 1882) and the parallel report at law.resource.org.
• US143,884 (Coll), "Improvement in Water-Ejectors," October 21, 1873 — recovered almost in full from the patent image at patentimages.storage.googleapis.com (US143884.pdf). This is the single most important document in the analysis (see § 3.2).
• (Also encountered but weaker: US92,718 (Glass), "Improvement in ejectors," July 20, 1869, described in Scaife v. Fulton, 21 F. Cas. 616 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1876) — a submerged steam-jet well ejector, structurally remote.)

1.3 References whose disclosures I could NOT retrieve

I have titles and dates only for US57,035, US104,986, US129,090, US159,872, US171,592, US196,384. I cannot map any of them to a claim element. Any element‑by‑element chart built on them would be fabricated. I therefore do not use them in the primary grounds below, and I say so rather than implying coverage.

---

2. Claim construction (the claims as issued)

OCR artifacts preserved, not corrected:

• Claim 1 — "A water-ejector having an inner head or shell which is open at its rear end, so as to leave an unobstructed opening thereto, and through which all the water discharged from the ejector passes, substantially as and for the purposes described."

  • Element 1a: inner head/shell open at its rear end with an unobstructed opening.
  • Element 1b: the inner head is the sole discharge path ("all the water discharged from the ejector passes" through it).

• Claim 2 — "A water-ejector provided with an inner head, having a large'unobstructed opening at its rear end, which extends, partially across the induction-opening, substantially as and for the purposes described."

  • Element 2a: inner head with large unobstructed rear opening.
  • Element 2b: the inner head extends partially across the induction-opening.

Note the asymmetry with the original. The 110,205 claim 1, as quoted by the Sheriff court, read: "The inner head, d, open at its rear end so as to leave an unobstructed opening around the steam-injection pipe for the passage of such pieces of solid matter as may be brought up by the water, such inner head, d, being connected to the outer head, a, by means of radial arms, a, all arranged substantially as described." RE8904's claims delete both "around the steam-injection pipe" and "connected … by means of radial arms," and add the "all the water … passes" limitation. That is a textbook enlargement with a partial narrowing — precisely the posture that puts intervening art in play.

And note what is not claimed: the interchangeable nozzle‑pieces m and n, the radial arms, the contracted throat, the Fig. 2 annular gap, and the outer chamber's closed forward end all live only in the specification. They are irrelevant to infringement and to § 103.

---

3. Element‑by‑element mapping

3.1 Element 1a ("inner head open at its rear end, unobstructed opening")

• Coll 110,205 (Dec. 20, 1870) — the original claim itself: "The inner head, d, open at its rear end so as to leave an unobstructed opening…" Element 1a is literally the patented starting point.
• Coll 90,930 (June 8, 1869) — weaker: the inner head's rear end is fastened to the injection pipe, and the water inlets are made "Back of the discharging end of the steam-injection pipe… in the inner head." Side inlets, not an open base. 90,930 therefore does not teach element 1a; it teaches the family's baseline from which 110,205 departed.
• Coll 143,884 (Oct. 21, 1873) — teaches a functionally equivalent structure: a receiving chamber a communicating with the discharge chamber b through "an opening, e, at the rear end of the receiving-chamber."

3.2 Element 1b ("all the water discharged … passes" through the inner head)

• Coll 90,930 — express, literal disclosure: "By closing up the annular space between the two discharge pipes the water may be discharged entirely through the inner discharge pipe, being slightly warmed by this method." This is element 1b, stated as an available mode of operation of the very machine RE8904 improves. This is the cleanest single piece of evidence in the file.
• Coll 143,884 — the discharge chamber b is the only outlet; the shell is "drawn down to form a nozzle, h," and "the outer end of which is threaded internally to form a socket, h', for the discharge-tube." All water necessarily exits through the discharge chamber/nozzle h. Structural, if not verbal, disclosure of element 1b — plus an explicit disclosure of a socketed, replaceable discharge tube, which is the structural genus to which RE8904's "interchangeable nozzle-pieces m/ n" belong (unclaimed, but probative of the art's state).
• RE8904's own specification — "It will be seen that the forward end of the outer chamber is closed, and that the entire discharge of the pump is through the inner head, d."

3.3 Elements 2a ("large … opening") and 2b ("extends, partially across the induction-opening")

• Coll 110,205 — supplies 2a: the base/blunt end of the inner head is "cut off at or near the broadest part," giving "a large unobstructed opening at its base." The radial arms hold the truncated head in position inside the outer head, i.e., inside the induction path.
• Coll 143,884 — supplies 2b and its express rationale: "The receiving-chamber a is separated from the discharge-chamber b by means of a diaphragm, c, which extends across the lower portion of the shell A. This diaphragm is provided with an opening, e, at the rear end of the receiving-chamber…" and, critically, "the diaphragm acts as a break-water to destroy the force of the inflowing current and prevent it from coming directly in contact with the jet of steam."

That last sentence is the entire asserted advantage of RE8904, stated four years earlier, by the same inventor, in the same class of device.

---

4. Grounds of rejection

Ground A — Claim 1 obvious over Coll 110,205 in view of Coll 90,930

• 1a from 110,205; 1b from 90,930's express "discharged entirely through the inner discharge pipe" mode.
• Motivation to combine: 110,205's specification itself declares it an improvement on 90,930. A PHOSITA reading both would be told directly that closing the annulus converts the device into a single‑pass machine. The motivation is textual and unambiguous — no hindsight needed.
• Rationale: KSR — combination of prior‑art elements according to known methods, yielding the predictable result of routing all discharge through the protected inner path.

Ground B — Claim 1 obvious over Coll 143,884 in view of Coll 90,930

• 1a from 143,884's rear opening e; 1b from 143,884's single discharge path out of nozzle h (with 90,930 reinforcing 1b expressly).
• Motivation: 143,884 arises in the same small field, from the same inventor, and expressly states its object — "I very much simplify the manufacture… and… preserve one of the features of the double-headed siphon-pump." Combining is no more than following the reference's own stated program.

Caveat on Grounds A/B: if the claims are entitled to Dec. 20, 1870, 143,884 is intervening art and is unavailable. See § 5.

Ground C — Claim 2 obvious over Coll 110,205 in view of Coll 143,884 (the strongest ground)

Motivation to combine — three independent, non-hindsight supports:

1. Express cross-reference by the secondary reference. 143,884 states of its own nozzle: "The forward end of the discharge-chamber is drawn down to form a nozzle, which corresponds in shape to that shown in the patent granted to me December 20, 1870." The 1873 patent points the reader straight at the 1870 patent. That is a court‑friendly, reference‑internal motivation.
2. Same field, same inventor, same problem. Both are Coll steam siphon pumps/water‑ejectors; both recite bilge/well/foundry service; both aim at shielding the steam jet from the inflowing current.
3. Shared design incentive, expressly stated. 143,884: "By my improvement I am enabled to reduce the amount of material that is necessary… and by forming the whole shell in one piece by casting I very much simplify the manufacture."

Predictable result. The reissue's asserted benefits — less rapid condensation of the steam jet, greater lifting power on less steam — are the very benefit 143,884 already describes. Under KSR, where the reference predicts the result and the combination is a rearrangement of known, cooperating mechanical parts, the claim is obvious.

Ground D — Claim 2 obvious as a mere change of proportion (110,205 or 143,884, standing alone)

The operative words in claim 2 are "large" and "partially across." Both are relative terms of degree with no recited bound. A PHOSITA sizing the base opening or setting the depth of the head's projection into the induction path is doing routine mechanical optimization of a known variable — In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is normally obvious"); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272 (CCPA 1980). Claim 2 is therefore also vulnerable without any intervening-art question arising, because 110,205's disclosure alone puts the "large unobstructed opening at the base" in the public domain. This ground has a direct 1879 analogue too: the era's cases routinely held that a mere change of form, proportion, or degree, producing no new function, is not invention.

---

5. The critical-date problem — and why it decides the case

S2 is the better-founded scenario, for three reasons:

1. Plain textual enlargement. RE8904 deletes the "around the steam-injection pipe" and "radial arms" limitations from 110,205 claim 1. Broadened claims are exactly where intervening rights and intervening patents attach.
2. Same-inventor, same-advantage evidence. 143,884 (1873) already recites the break-water/anti-condensation function. That function is the whole asserted contribution of the 1879 reissue. If the doctrine of intervening art applies at all, 143,884 is squarely inside it.
3. The closest judicial treatment of this family points the same way. Sheriff, 12 F. 136, held as to RE9199 — the later Coll reissue of the same original 110,205 — that its specification set forth advantages "neither mentioned nor hinted at in the original specification (No. 110,205)", namely that the inner head "acts as a breakwater or dam to break the force or impact of the inflowing current." RE8904's specification contains the same break-water paragraph. If that matter was new when RE9199 was filed (March 13, 1880), it was new when RE8904 was filed (August 30, 1879) — because RE8904 was filed first and drafted from the same text.

Explicit uncertainty: I could not retrieve the 110,205 specification in full, and I found no adjudication of RE8904. Whether a court or examiner of the day would have shifted RE8904's effective date to 1879 is something I do not know with confidence. I flag S2 as the better-supported hypothesis, not as a finding.

---

6. Flagged contradictions and collateral issues

• Contradiction to note against my earlier summary's framing of related documents. The prior section treated the family as essentially RE8904 + RE9199. It did not capture US143,884 (Oct. 21, 1873) — an intervening Coll patent that, as shown in § 4, is the most damaging reference of all. The earlier summary is not wrong, but it is materially incomplete on this point.
• RE9199 is not prior art but is confining. Its sole claim, as reported in Sheriff, is: "A water ejector, provided with an inner head or shell, extending backward over the water-induction opening, and arranged with relation to the jet-pipe so as to protect the steam-jet from the direct impact of the inflowing current of water, the inner end of said head being provided with a large unobstructed opening, through which all the water passes to the…" That is RE8904 claims 1 + 2 restated in one sentence. Two reissues of a single original, issuing eight months apart, claiming substantially the same thing, is a double‑patenting / late‑claiming problem, not a § 103 problem. It is outside this task's scope but should not be overlooked.
• Independent reissue-validity attacks dominate § 103 here. Under Rev. Stat. § 4894 as construed in Sheriff, an eight‑year‑eight‑month delay in filing an enlarging reissue was held unreasonable as to RE9199 (nine‑year delay). RE8904's delay (Aug. 30, 1879 filing on a Dec. 20, 1870 original) is of the same order. That invalidity ground is more likely to have disposed of RE8904 than any obviousness theory, and this analysis does not weigh it.
• Post‑1879 references are unusable. The bulk of the Similar Documents list (RE9380, RE10169, 231789, 334597, 283013, 281050, 284453, 661180, 646640, 698511, 749875, etc.) post‑dates RE8904 by years. They are not § 102/§ 103 art and should not appear in any chart. At most they evidence the art's later development.
• Date discrepancy in the record. The session header states 2026‑09‑27; this task instruction states April 26, 2026. Immaterial to the analysis (the patent expired in 1896 under either), but noted per the no‑auto‑correction rule.

---

7. What would defeat the obviousness case

1. A § 102(b)‑analogue "same invention" finding. If RE8904's claims are held to be for the same invention as 110,205, 143,884 (1873) is intervening art and Grounds B/C/D evaporate. Ground A limps on.
2. Non‑analogous art. Under the 19th‑century and pre‑KSR "analogous arts" tests, US129,090 (beer‑faucets), US159,872 (parlor‑fountains), US171,592 (reciprocating pumps), and US196,384 (hydrants) would very likely be excluded. I list them for completeness and for dating purposes only; I do not rely on any of them.
3. Unexpected results / secondary considerations. The reissue's specification asserts a surprising result ("great power with a comparatively small amount of steam is obtained"). But this argument is largely foreclosed by 143,884, which four years earlier stated the identical causal mechanism: the break‑water "prevent[s the water] from coming directly in contact with the jet of steam." An advantage already explained in the inventor's own prior patent is not unexpected.
4. My evidentiary gap. I could not retrieve the disclosures of US57,035, US104,986, or the four non‑analogous pre‑1879 references. If any of those contains a double‑wall ejector with a truncated inner shell and a single discharge path, Grounds A and B strengthen considerably. I cannot say, and I will not guess.

---

8. Bottom line

• Claim 1 is, at minimum, obvious — and arguably anticipated — over Coll's own 1870 disclosure combined with Coll's express 1869 teaching that "the water may be discharged entirely through the inner discharge pipe." That teaching is textual, not reconstructed; the combination requires no hindsight.
• Claim 2 is the claim most exposed. Over 110,205 + 143,884, every element is disclosed (large unobstructed rear opening; a wall extending partially across the induction path; shielding the jet from the inflow), the references share inventor, field, and stated object, the secondary reference expressly cross-references the primary's nozzle "which corresponds in shape to that shown in the patent granted to me December 20, 1870," and the asserted benefit is predicted rather than unexpected. Independently, claim 2 falls to Ground D on relative terminology alone (In re Aller).
• All of this depends on the critical date. If RE8904's claims take the Dec. 20, 1870 date, only Ground A survives. If they are new-matter/enlarged claims taking the Aug. 30, 1879 date, Ground C is a clean § 103 rejection. My read of the text — deletion of the "around the steam-injection pipe" and "radial arms" limitations, plus the RE9199 parallel — favors the latter, but I do not have the 110,205 specification before me and I cannot verify it.
• Confidence: High on the claim text and on the 143,884 and 90,930 quotations (both read from primary images/case reports). Moderate on the critical-date conclusion. Low on anything requiring US57,035, US104,986, US129,090, US159,872, US171,592, or US196,384 — I have their dates and titles, and nothing else.