cision is as fatal to his original patent as to the reissue. Peck v. Collins, 103 U. S. 660; s. c., 19 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1137. Rights of Action.-All rights of action under the original patent expire with the surrender and reissue. Jones v. Barker, 11 Fed. Rep. 597; United States Stamping Co. v. King, 7 Fed. Rep. 860; Mers v. Conover, 11 Pat. Off. Gaz. 4; Fry v. Quinlan, 13 Blatchf. (U.S.) 205; Reedy v. Scott, 23 Wall. (U. S.) 352; s. c., 7 Pat. Off. Gaz. 463; Burrell v. Hackley, 35 Fed. Rep. 833.

But a patentee may sue for an unlawful use of a machine bought before a reissue. Bliss v. Brooklyn, 8 Blatchf. (U. S.) 533; s. c., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 596; Carr v. Rice, I Fish. Pat. Cas. 327.

1. Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Weatherbee, 2 Cliff. (U. S.) 555; s. c., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 87.

And when the applicant has done all he can to make the surrender effective, he has a right to consider his application properly before the Commissioner. Commissioner v. Whitely, 4 Wall. (U.

S.) 522.

2. Seymour v. Osborne, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 555; Graham v. Mason, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1; s. c., 4 Cliff. (U. S.) 88; La Baw v. Hawkins, 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 428; s. c., 6 Pat. Off. Gaz. 724; Milligan etc. Glue Co. v. Upton, 97 U. S.3; Metropolitan Washing Mach. Co. v. Providence Tool Co., 1 Holmes (U.S.) 161; Wells v. Gill, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 89; s. c., 2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 590; Nicholson Pavement Co. v. Elizabeth, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 424; s. c., 3 Pat. Off. Gaz. 522; Giant Powder Co. v. Safety Nitro Powder Co., 19 Fed. Rep. 509; Seckels v. Evans, 2 Cliff. (U. S.) 203; Stephens v. Pritchard, 4 Cliff. (U. S.) 417; Derring v. Nelson, 14 Blatchf. (U. S.) 293; s. C., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 55; S. C., 12 Pat. Off. Gaz. 753; Tucker v. Tucker Mfg. Co., 4 Cliff. (U. S.) 397; s. c., 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 40; s. c., 10 Pat. Off. Gaz. 464; Chicago Fruit House v. Busch, 2 Biss. (U. S.) 472; s. C., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 395; Carew v. Fabric Co., 3

Cliff. (U. S.) 356; s. c., 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 90; s. c., 1 Pat. Off. Gaz. 91; Heald v. Rice, 104 U. S. 737; s. c., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1443; Ball v. Langles, 102 U. S. 128; Manufacturing Co. v. Du Brul, 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 618; s. c., 12 Pat. Off. Gaz. 351.

Consequently when the original patent is not in evidence, the court cannot declare the reissued patent void for being for a different invention. Doherty v. Haynes, 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 289; s. c., 4 Cliff. (U. S.) 291; s. c., 6 Pat. Off. Gaz. 118.

All matters of fact connected with the surrender and reissue of the patent are closed by the action of the Commissioner in granting a reissue. Sey. mour v. Osborne, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 555; Jordan v. Dobson, 4 Fish. Pat. Čas. 232; Stimpson v. West Chester R.,

How. (U. S.) 380; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 335; Colt v. Young, 2 Blatchf. (U. S.) 471; Forbes v. Barstow Stove Co., 2 Cliff. (U. S.) 379; French v. Rogers, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 133; Thomas v. Shoe Mach. Co., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 357; s. c., 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 541; Combined Patents Can Co. v. Lloyd, 11 Fed. Rep. 149; Selden v. Stockwell etc. Gas Burner Co., 19 Blatchf. (U. S.) 544; s. c., 9 Fed. Rep. 390; s. c., 20 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1377; Parham v. American Button etc. Mach. Co., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 468; Gage v. Herring, 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 2179; s. c., 107 U. S. 640; Smith v. Merriam, 6 Fed. Rep. 713; s. c., 19 Pat. Off. Gaz. 601; Asmus v. Alden, 27 Fed. Rep. 684; Searls v. Worden, 11 Fed. Rep. 501; s. c., 2: Pat. Off. Gaz. 1955; Herring v. Nelson, 14 Blatchf. (U. S.) 293; s. c., 12 Pat. Off. Gaz. 753; 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 55.

As a rule the question whether the reissue was made to cure a fault arising from accident or mistake, is decided conclusively by the Commissioner. Asmus v. Alden, 27 Fed. Rep. 684.

And prima facie the Commissioner has discharged his duty faithfully and correctly, and therefore the reissued

thority.1

patent is for the same invention as the original patent, and that the surrender was on account of an inadvertence or mistake. Allen v. Blunt, 2 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 121; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 530; Allen v. Blunt, 3 Story (U. S.) 742; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 285; Philadelphia etc. R. v. Stimpson, 14 Pet. (U. S.) 448; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 46; Smith v. Mercer, 5 Pa. L. J. 529; Hussey v. Bradley, 5 Blatchf. (U. S.) 134; S. C., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 362; Crompton v. Belknap Mills, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 536; Birdsell v. McDonald, 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 165; s. c., 6 Pat. Off. Gaz. 682; Woodworth v. Edwards, 3 Woodb. & M. (U. S.) 120; Hussey v. McCormick, 1 Biss. (U. S.) 300; s. c., I Fish. Pat. Cas. 509; Hussey v. Bradley, 5 Blatchf. (U. S.) 134; s. c., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 362; Morris v. Royer, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 176; Middletown Co. v. Judd, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 141; Goodyear v. Berry, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 439, s. c., 2 Bond (U. Š.) 189; Knight v. Baltimore etc. R. Co., I Taney (U. S.) 106; s. c., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1; Manufacturing Co. v. Du Brul, 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 618; s. c., 12 Pat. Off. Gaz. 351.

And many other cases where the principle is thoroughly established. And that it has not been extended beyond the original invention. Bantz v. Elsar, Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 351; s. c., 6 Pat. Off. Gaz. 117.

1. Giant Powder Co. v. California etc. Powder Works, 4 Fed. Rep. 720; s. c., 18 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1339; Flower v. Rayner, 5 Fed. Rep. 793; s. c., 19 Pat. Off. Gaz. 425.

The action of the Commissioner is now conclusive as to the existence of fraud in making the application. Giant Powder Co. v. Safety etc. Powder Co., 10 Sawy. (U.S.) 23; s. c., 19 Fed. Rep. 509; s. c., 27 Pat. Off. Gaz. 99; Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 516; La Baw v. Hawkins, 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 428; s. c., 6 Pat. Off. Gaz. 724; Johnsen v. Beard, 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 50; s. c., 8 Pat. Off. Gaz. 435; Schullinger v. Cranford, 4 Mackey (U. S.) 450; Corn Planter Patent, 23 Wall. (U. S.) 181; s. c., 6 Pat. Off. Gaz. 392.

2. U. S. Rev. Stats., § 4916; Seymour v. Osborne, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 555; Sickels v. Evans, 2 Cliff. (U. S.) 203; s. c., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 417; Battin v.

Taggart, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 139; Cahardt v. Austin, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 543; Sickles v. Falls Co., 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 508; s. c., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 202; Goodyear v. Berry, 2 Bond (U. S.), 189; s. c., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 439; American Wood Paper Co. v. Fibre Disintegrating Co., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 362; American Wood Paper Co. v. Heft, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 316; Dunham v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 40 Fed. Rep. 667; Hubel v. Dick, 24 Blatchf. (U. S.) 139; s. c., 28 Fed. Rep. 656; Combined Patents Can Co. v. Lloyd, 11 Fed. Rep. 149; Flower v. Rayner, 19 Pat. Off. Gaz. 425; Cummings v. Newton, 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 159; s. c., 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 720; Neacy v. Allis, 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1621; M'Kay v. Stowe, 17 Fed. Rep. 517; United States etc. Felting Co. v. Haven, 3 Dill. (U.S.) 131; s. c., 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 164; s. c., 9 Pat. Off. Gaz. 253; Goodyear v. Providence Rubber Co., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 499; Reed v. Chase, 25 Fed. Rep. 94; Haines v. Peck, 26 Fed. Rep. 625; Flower v. Detroit, 127 U. S. 563; National Pump Cylinder Co. v. Simmons Hardware Co., 18 Fed. Rep. 324; Globe Nail Co. v. United States etc. Nail Co., 19 Fed. Rep. 819; Philadelphia Novelty Mfg. Co. v. Rouss, 39 Fed. Rep. 273.

The original patent consisted of two features: First, in the collars of parchment-paper or paper prepared with animal sizing. Second, in coating one or both sides of the collar with a thin varnish of bleached shellac to give smoothness, strength and stiffness, and to repel moisture; the reissue describes a paper, other than as above described, and did not require the collars to be coated with shellac. Held, this was a different invention. Union Paper Collar Co. v. Van Dusen, 23 Wall. (U.S.) 530; s. c., 7 Pat. Off. Gaz. 919.

The original patent for one of its elements had the use of a hot, fat liquid; the reissue included both hot and cold. Held, not the same invention. Russell v. Dodge, 93 U. S. 460; s. c., II Pat. Off. Gaz. 151.

The original patent had the canceling device in a letter-canceling and postmarking contrivance, restricted to a tube containing a piece of wood or other material; the reissue claimed a stamp without the peculiar mechan

isms. James v. Campbell, 104 U. S. 356.

The reasonable inference in the original specification of Green's patent was that an air-tight connection was made between the tube and the earth. Held, that a description of means of making such air-tight connection did not describe a different invention. Eames v. Andrews, 122 U. S. 40.

The courts will treat a reissue favor

ably, where the patentee is clearly seeking, by apt words, to cover his invention, and nothing more. Crandal v. Parker Carriage Goods Co., 20 Fed. Rep. 851.

Parol testimony of what the invention actually consisted of cannot be used to correct a defect for the purpose of obtaining a reissue. Union Paper Collar Co. v. Van Dusen, 23 Wall. (U. S.) 530; s. c., 7 Pat. Off. Gaz. 919; Averill Paint Co. v. National Paint Co., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 585; Farr v. Webb, 10 Blatchf. (U.S.) 96; s. c., 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 593; s. c., 2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 568; Sarven v. Hall, 9 Blatchf. (U. S.) 524.

Nor will a mere inadvertence to insert a portion of the invention in the original specification, be considered a sufficient excuse. Atwater Mfg. Co. v. Beecher Mfg. Co., 8 Fed. Rep. 608.

But apparently a proof of what was in a lost or dilapidated model may be received. Meyer v. Goodyear etc. Glove Mfg. Co., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 681; Aultman v. Holley, 11 Blatchf. (U. S.) 317; s. c., 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 534; s. c., 5 Pat. Off. Gaz. 3; Royer v. Russell, 7 Fed. Rep. 696; s. c., 20 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1819.

A liberal construction of the original patent will be made to avoid declaring a reissue void for being not for the same invention as the original. Milligan Glue Co. v. Upton, 97 U. S. 3; s. c., 6 Pat. Off. Gaz. 837; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. New Haven Sav. Bank, 32 Fed. Rep. 167.

1. Giant Powder Co. v. California etc. Powder Co., 4 Fed. Rep. 720; s. c., 18 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1339; Flower v. Rayner, 5 Fed. Rep. 793; s. c., 19 Pat. Off. Gaz. 425; Wells v. Gill, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 89; s. c., 2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 590; Heald v. Rice, 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1447; Fay v. Preble, 14 Fed. Rep. 652; Averill Chemical Paint Co. v. National etc. Paint Co., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 585; Schultz v. Ostrander, 27 Fed. Rep. 245; Parker etc. Co. v. Yale Lock Co., 18 Fed.

Rep. 43; Vacuum Oil Co. v. Buffalo Lubricating Co., 20 Fed. Rep. 850; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. James, 20 Fed. Rep. 903; Reed v. Chase, 25 Fed. Rep. 94; Columbia Rubber Co. v. Klous, 33 Fed. Rep. 275; Andrews v. Hovey, 26 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1011; Schillinger v Cranford, 4 Mackey (U. S.) 450; s. c., 37 Pat. Off. Gaz. 49; Farmers' etc. Mfg. Co. v. Challenge Corn Planter Co., 23 Fed. Rep. 42; s. c., 30 Pat. Off. Gaz. 661; Hayes v. Seton, 20 Blatchf. (U. S.) 484; S. C., 12 Fed. Rep. 120; Streit v. Lauter, 11 Fed. Rep. 309; Hart v. Thayer, 20 Blatchf. (U. S.) 315; s. c., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 791 s. c., 10 Fed. Rep. 746; Curtis v. Branch, 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 189; s. c., 15 Pat. Off. Gaz. 919; Kerosene Lamp Heater Co. v. Littell, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 312; S. C., 13 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1009; Russell v. Dodge, 93 U. S. 460; Stevens v. Pritchard, 4 Cliff. (U. S.) 417; s. c., 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas.390; Cahart v. Austin, 2 Cliff. (U.S.) 528; s. c., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 468; Knight v. Baltimore etc. R. Co., 1 Taney (U. S.) 106; s. c., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1; Dyson v. Danforth, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 133; Steam Gage etc. Co. v. Miller, 11 Fed. Rep. 718; New York Bung etc. Co. v. Hoffman, 20 Blatchf. (U. S.) 3; Wicks v. Stephens, 2 Woods (U. S.) 310; s. c., 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 318; United States Felting Co. v. Haven, 9 Pat. Off. Gaz. 253; Swaine étc. Mfg. Co. v. Ladd, 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 488; s. c., 11 Pat. Off. Gaz. 153; Matthews v. Iron Clad Mfg. Co., 124 U. S. 349; S. C., 42 Pat. Off. Gaz. 827; Matthews v. Boston Mach. Co., 105 U. S. 54; s. c., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1349; Window Screen Co. v. Boughton, i Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 327; Ives v. Sargent, 119 U. S. 652; s. c., 38 Pat. Off. Gaz. 781; Gong etc. Mfg. Co. v. Clark, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 211; Thomas v. Shoe Mach. Co., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 557; s. c., 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 541; Vogler v. Semple, 7 Biss. (U. S.) 382; s. c., 11 Pat. Off. Gaz. 923; Doane etc. Mfg. Co. v. Smith, 15 Fed. Rep. 459; s. c., 24 Pat. Off. Gaz. 302; American etc. Drill Co. v. Sullivan Mach. Co., 22 Batchf. (U. S.) 298; s. c., 21 Fed. Rep. 74; s. c., 28 Pat. Off. Gaz. 8111; Parker etc. Co. v. Yale Clock Co., 123 U. S. 89; Cammeyer v. Newton, 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 159; s. c., 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 720; Campbell v. James, 104 U. S. 356; s. c., 2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 337; Gosling v. Roberts, 106 U. S.

39; s. c., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1785; Moffitt v. Rogers, 106 U. S. 423; s. c., 23 Pat. Off. Gaz. 270; Wing v. Anthony, 106 U. S. 142; Warring v. Johnson, 19 Blatchf. (U.S.) 38; s. c., 6 Fed. Rep. 500. Hopkins etc. Mfg. Co. v. Corbin, 103 U.S. 786, Ball v. Langles, 102 U. S. 128; Garneau v. Dozier, 102 U. S. 230; Jones v. McMurray, 2 Hughes (U.S.) 527; s. c., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 130; Atwater Mfg. Co. v. Beecher Mfg. Co., 8 Fed. Rep. 608.

The later rulings of the supreme court as to what may be included in a reissued patent, seem to rule that it must appear affirmatively from the comparison of the two patents, that the reissue embraces no invention which was not intended to be secured by the original patent. Flower v. Detroit, 127 U. S. 563; s. c., 43 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1348; Hoskin v. Fisher, 125 U. S. 217; s. c., 43 Pat. Off. Gaz. 509; Parker etc. Co. v. Yale Clock Co., 123 U. S. S7; s. c., 41 Pat. Off. Gaz. 811.

New Matter-Definition of.-New matter is anything not embraced in, or necessarily flowing from the invention as originally described, which affects the substance of the invention and might have been the subject of a new patent. Dederick v. Cassell, 9 Fed. Rep. 306; s. c., 20 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1233; Christman v. Rumsey, 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) 148; s. C., 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 506, s. c., 17 Pat. Off. Gaz. 903; Thomas v. Shoe Mach. Co., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 138; 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 541; Purviance v. Yerrington, 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 237; s. c., 9 Pat. Off. Gaz. 689; Siebert etc. Oil Cup Co. v. Harper etc. Lubricator Co., 4 Fed. Rep. 328.

1. See cases cited in subsequent

notes.

2. Sickles v. Evans, 2 Cliff. (U. S.) 203; s. c., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 417; Seymour v. Osborne, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 555; Cabart v. Austin, 2 Cliff. (U. S.) 543; s. c., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 543; Knight v. Baltimore etc. R. Co., 1 Taney (U. S.) 106, s. c., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1; Hoffheins v. Brandt, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 218; Sarven v. Hall, 9 Blatchf. (U. S.) 524; s. c., 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 415; s. c., 1 Pat. Off. Gaz. 437, Kirby v. Dodge etc. Mfg. Co., 10 Blatchf. (U. S.) 307; s. c., 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 307; s. c., 3 Pat. Off.

Gaz. 181; Adjustable Window Screen Co. v. Boughton, 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 327; Flint v. Roberts, 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 168; Atwood v. Portland Co., 10 Fed. Rep. 283; s. c., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 533; Holmes etc. Tel. Co. v. Domestic Teleph. Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 220; Dederick v. Cassell, 9 Fed. Rep. 306; Hendy v. Golden State etc. Iron Works, 8 Sawyer (U. S.) 468; s. c., 17 Fed. Rep. 515; Bussey v. Wagner, 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 229; s. c., 9 Pat. Off. Gaz. 300; Whittlesey v. Ames, 9 Biss. (U. S.) 225; s. C., 13 Fed. Rep. 893; s. c., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 96; s. c., 18 Pat. Off. Gaz. 357; Calkins v. Bertrand, 6 Biss. (U.S.) 494; s. c., 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 215; s. c., 9 Pat. Off. Gaz. 795; Meyer v. Goodyear etc. Glove Mfg. Co., 11 Fed. Rep. 891; s. c., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 681; Reissner v. Anness, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 176; s. c., 13 Pat. Off. Gaz. 870; Barker v. Shoots, 18 Fed. Rep. 647; Peoria Target Co. v. Cleveland Target Co., 43 Fed. Rep. 922; Eachus v. Broomall, 115 U. S. 429.

So where the drawings and description show that the matter embraced in the reissue was not in the original patent, the reissue is invalid. Covell v. Pratt, 18 Blatchf. (U. S.) 126; s. c., 18 Pat. Off. Gaz. 301; s. c., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 380; s. c., 2 Fed. Rep. 359.

What was suggested or indicated in the original specification, drawing or Patent Office model, is not to be considered as a part of the invention intended to have been covered by the original patent, unless it can be seen from a comparison of the two patents, that the invention which the original patent was intended to cover, embraced the things thus suggested or indicated in the original specification, etc., and unless the original specification indicated that those things were embraced in the invention intended to have been secured in the original patent. Parker etc. Co. v. Yale Clock Co., 123 U. S. 87.

Model.-Under this ruling the office model is not sufficient. Flower v. Detroit, 127 U. S. 562; s. c., 43 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1348; Parker etc. Co. v. Yale Clock Co., 21 Blatchf. (U. S.) 485; s. c., 18 Fed. Rep. 45; probably overruling Hendy v. Golden State etc. Iron Works,

8 Sawy. (U. S.) 468; s. c., 17 Fed. Rep. 515; Reissner v. Anness, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 176; s. c., 13 Pat. Off. Gaz. 870; Meyer v. Goodyear etc. Glove Mfg. Co., 20 Blatchf. (Ŭ. S.) 91; s. c., 11 Fed. Rep. 891.

Drawing.-But if the invention attempted to be covered appears in the drawing, it is sufficient. Meyer v. Goodyear etc. Glove Mfg. Co., 20 Blatchf. (U. S.) 91; s. c., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 681; s. c., 11 Fed. Rep. 891.

1. French v. Rogers, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 133; Tarr v. Folsom, 1 Holmes (U. S.) 313; s. c., I Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 24; S. C., 5 Pat. Off. Gaz. 92; Wells v. Jaques, 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 60; Wonson v. Peterson, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 249; Carew v. Boston etc. Fabric Co., i Holmes (U. S.) 45; s. c., 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 90; s. c., i Pat. Off. Gaz. 91; Crompton v. Belknap Mills, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 536; Blake v. Stafford, 6 Blatchf. (U.S.) 195; Tucker v. Tucker Mfg. Co., 4 Cliff. (Ü. S.) 397; s. c., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 294; Morse v. Bain, 9 West. L. J. 106; Stevens v. Pritchard, 10 Pat. Off. Gaz. 505: Lorrilard Co. v. McDowell, 11 Pat. Off. Gaz. 640; Bridge v. Brown, 1 Holmes (U. S.) 53; Searls v. Van Nest, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 121; s. c., 13 Pat. Off. Gaz. 772; Atlantic etc. Powder Co. v. Rand, 16 Blatchf. (U. S.) 250; s. c., 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 87; S. C., 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 263; St. Louis Stamping Co. v. Quimby, 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 192; s. c., 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 135; Thomas v. Shoe Mach. Co., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 557; s. c., 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 541; Christman v. Rumsey, 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) 148; s. c., 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 506; s. c., 17 Pat. Off. Gaz. 903; Stephenson v. Second Ave. R. Co., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 116; s. c., 1 Fed. Rep. 416; Tyler v. Welch, 18 Blatchf. (U. S.) 209; s. c., 3 Fed. Rep. 636; Wisner v. Dodds, 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 447; s. c., 2 Fed. Rep. 781; McCreary v. Pennsylvania Canal Co., 5 Fed. Rep. 367; Marks v. Fox, 18 Blatchf. (U. S.) 502; s. c., 6 Fed. Rep. 727; Loercher v. Crandal, 11 Fed. Rep. 872; s. c., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 863; Strobridge v. Landers, 11 Fed. Rep. 880; s. c. 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1027; Searls v. Worden, 11 Fed. Rep. 501; s. c., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1955; Putnam v. Keystone Bottle Stopper Co., 38 Fed. Rep. 234; Union Paper Bag Mach. Co. v. Waterbury, 39 Fed. Rep. 389; Pope Mfg. Co. v.

Gormully etc. Mfg. Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 896; Walker v. Terre Haute, 44 Fed. Rep. 70; Hubel v. Waldie, 35 Fed. Rep. 414; Turner etc. Mfg. Co. v. Dover Stamping Co., 111 U. S. 319; National Spring Co. v. Union etc. Spring Co., 12 Blatchf (U. S.) 80; Black v. Thorne, 12 Blatchf. (U. S.) 20.

Illustrations of Changes Which May or May Not be Made in the Specifications.— From an imperfect description of one kind of machine to which an invention may be applied to another kind of machine. Aultman v. Holley, 5 Pat. Off. Gaz. 3; s. c., 11 Blatchf. (U. S.) 317; De Florez v. Raynolds, 14 Blatchf. (U. S.) 505; s. c., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 292; Patten v. Stewart, 7 Fed. Rep. 215; Mfg. Co. v. Thomas, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 148; St. Louis Stamping Co. v. Quimby, 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 192; s. c., 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 135.

An inserted assertion that the invention belongs to a certain class and accomplishes a certain result, does not invalidate. Reed v. Chase, 25 Fed. Rep. 94; Patten v. Stewart, 18 Blatchf. (Ü. S.) 561; s. c., 7 Fed. Rep. 215; s. c., 19 Pat. Off. Gaz. 997; Doane etc. Mfg. Co. v. Smith, 15 Fed. Rep. 459; s. c., 24 Pat. Off. Gaz. 302; Schillinger v. Gunther, 15 Blatchf. (U. S.) 303; s. c., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 491; s. c., 14 Pat. Off. Gaz. 713.

Changes Allowable.-Changes of form where form is not essential. Putnam v. Hutchinson, 12 Fed. Rep. 131; Abbe v. Clark, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 211; s. c., 13 Pat. Off. Gaz. 274; Decker v. Grote, 10 Blatchf. (U. S.) 331; s. c., 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 424; s. c., 3 Pat. Off. Gaz. 522.

Otherwise where the change, though slight, is a substantial one producing a new result. Kirby v. Dodge etc. Mfg. Co., 10 Blatchf. (Ŭ. S.) 307; s. c., 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 156; s. c., 3 Pat. Off. Gaz. 181.

Changing the relative importance of various matters. Broadnax v. Central Stock Yard etc. Co., 4 Fed. Rep. 214; s. c., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 609; Poppenhausen v. Falke, 4 Blatchf. (Ú. S.) 493; s. c., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 181; Robertson v. Secombe Mfg. Co., 10 Blatchf. (U. S.) 481; s. c., 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 268, s. c., 3 Pat. Off. Gaz. 412; American etc. Pavement Co. v. Elizabeth, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 424; s. c., 3 Pat. Off. Gaz. 522.

Or the drawing in immaterial par