Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/228

 su ���rEOBSAIi BEPOBTEB. ���Broadnax V. Thb Centbal Stock Yard & Transit Coupant» �(CCrouit Court, D. New Jersey. September 28, 1880.) �1. Rb-ibbubd liETTBBS Pai^kt No. 6,925, dated June 23, 1874, for im- provement in apparatus for rendering lard and tallow and other ani- mal matter, and for crisping and drying the refuse thereof, li£ld, under the circumatances of this case, net infringed by the defendant corpo- ration. �S. Same — Invention. — The gist of the invention is the apparatus, or com- bination of parts, and uot any particular instruinentality by which it is put into operation. Heymour v. Mwnh 2 O. G. 675. Wheeler v. The Clipper Mower Go. T.d. 442. �B. Bame — Samb — Re- issue — Claim. — A re-issue is not theref ore voîd whicJ» flrst claims the instrumentality by which the combinatiun or apparatus «nay be used. �A. Sahe — Samb — CIonbtbdotion. — An invention ueed not in fact be con- �structed, in order to preserve « patent, when the patentee is a citizen �of the United States, and the invention is capable of construction and �operation froin the model and specifications flled in the patent-offlce. �Wheder v. Th4 Clipper iftnew Go., mtpra. �In Equity. �Amos Broadnax, for complainant. �Leon Abbot, for defendant. �Nixon, D. J. The bill is aled in this case agaînst the defend- ant corporation for infringing re-issued letters patent, No. 5,925, dated June 23, 1874, for improvement in apparatus for rendering lard and tallow and other animal matter, and for crisping and drying the refuse thereof. The original let- ters patent, numbered 81,473, were granted to the complain- ant September 1, 1868. The bill of complaint alleges that the first claim of the re-issue bas been infringed. This claim is for a stationary tank enolosed in a stationary heating cham- ber, and fitted with a horizontal rotating stirrer, by which the material under treatment is thrown over and over while it is being rendered or dried. �The principal defences insiste d upon at the hearing were — First, that the re-issued patent was void, (a) because tha re issue embraced more than the original patent; (b) because ����