Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/645

 638 FEDERAL BBPOBTBB. �stantially in place as Stembergh's does. I cannoi doubt ttat it is an appropriation of Sternbergh's invention, and if the real invention had been more carefully described in the orig- inal patent the case would be entirely clear. Some doubt, however, is suggested because the language of the description and claim in the re-issue departs from that employed in the original for describing the recess which holds the band or ring; and it is urged that the re-issue is void as enlarging the scope of the invention disclosed in the original. The original describes a ring or band "made to occupy a groove in the hoop so as not to interfere with the foUower." The re-issue describes a hoop "with an annular groove or depres- sion," and a ring or band made to occupy it. �By the aid of the drawings there is no difficulty in ascer- taining what the patentee meant in bis original specification by the term "groove." Without the drawings, reading the entire description of the several parts, and ascertaining their functions when used in the process of pressing cheese, as detailed, it would be the natural and neceasary inference that such a channel was oontemplated as would be appropriate for the insertion and location of the expansible band. �The drawings show an aimular recess near the upper part of the hoop. The function of this recess is to hold the band, during the downward pressure of the foUower, so that the ex- terior surface of the band shall be the same as that of the interior of the hoop. Any change in the form, or even in the location, of this recess, which does not involve a change of function, would be immaterial, and would be permissible un- der the original patent. I am of opinion that if this action had been founded on the original patent, complainant could have Bucceeded. �It is the office of a re-issue to correct errors in the speci- fication and in the claim of the original patent. "When alter- ations are made which enlarge the scope of the patent, and secure to the patentee improvements made by others subse- quent to the original patent, they should be carefully scruti- nized in order to see that nothing is granted which was not fairly disclosed originally. In this case, I doubt whether there ����