Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/230

 216 7EDEBAL BEPOBTEB. �their combination and results. He does not pretend that the combination bas, in itself, any capacity to produce any useful resuit, and nowhere therein does he indicate that it may be used except in connection with external dry beat. But, in the re-issue, he states broadly that bis invention extends to whatever form the apparatus, in its varions forms, may take, or in whatever form the beat may be applied, or however the furnace may be combined with the apparatus. �The counsel for the defendant, at the hearing, insisted that this was an enlargement of the scope of the patent; that more was claimed than was suggested in the original; and that hence the re-issue was void, not being for the same invention. �I do not think the re-issue is obnoxious to such a charge. In view of the state of the art, an apparatus for rendering the fat and drying the refuse of animal matter is patentable, apart from any connection with other instrumentaUties by which it is to be made operative and eflacient. Because one mode only is indieated in the original, the patentee is not shut up to the one mode in the re-issue, as long as it is not of the essence of the invention. The law, indeed, requires him to disclose some mode by which it can be rendered prac- tically useful, but it does not foUow that be is confined to that, and may use no other. The gist of the invention is the apparatus, or combination of parts, and not any particular instrumentality by which it is put in operation. Seymour v. Marsh, 2 0. G. 675 ; Wheeler v. The Clipper Mower Go. Id. 442. It may be proper also, in this connection, to allude to another ground of opposition to the complainant's patent, urged by the defendant in the argument. �The proof was that the complainant had never put bis alleged invention into practieal use, and it was insisted from this fact that the inventor could not maintain a suit for its infringement. But this is not the law, when the patentee is a citizen of the United States. In Wheeler v. The Clipper Mower Go,, supra, Judge Woodruff, in considering this objec- tion to the validity of a patent, says : "If the invention be such that when the tbing invented sball be constructed ����