Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/338

 330 FEDEEAL KEPOBTEB. �or sell is one called "Dualin, made in accordance with a patent granted to the defendant Dittmar January 18, 1870. They urge the foUowing propositions : (1.) That, in view of matters now presented, the plaintiff's reissued patent, in omitting the word "inexplosive," in discarding the concen- tration feature of the original patent, and in altering and adding other clauses not contained in the original patent, is broader than the original and void. (2.) That, on the evi- dence now presented, the Dittmar patent is the first valid and subaisting patent for nitro-glycerine safety powder combina- tions, composed of nitro-glycerine absorbed in some com- bustible or explosive, as distinguished from inexplosive sub- stance, and that the plaintiff's reissue should be limited strictly to what ia contained within the plain reading of the description of the original patent. (3.) That Dittmar was the original and first inventer of the mixture of nitro-glycer- ine with some porous solid, as distinguished from fluid or liquid substance, in such proportions as to render the result- ing compound a powder safe against the usual shocks of transportation and use, and, therefore, the original and first inventor of the compositions claimed in Nobel's original patent and in the plaintiff's reissue; that Nobel fraudulently and surreptitiously purloined his invention, and that the original and the reissue are void. (4.) That the conduct of the plaintiff and its proceedings heretofore, with respect to its litigations and to Dittmar, have not been such as to justify the application for an injunction at this stage of the suit. �The question of the difference between the original and the reissue in respect to the concentration feature, and in the omission from the reissue of the word "inexplosive, " found in the original, in reference to the absorbent substance, was considered and passed upon in the decision of this court in the Eand case favorably to the plaintiff, and the la tter point was considered and passed upon in the same way by Judge Shepley in the Goodyear case. In the present case it is con- tended for the defendants that extrinsic evidence, "not in the former cases, is introduced, as to the state of the art of man- faoturing explosive compounds in 1867 and 1868, and »3 to ��� �