Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/347

 SIEBEBT OYL. OIL.OD£L€IOj.r..HASSEB.LUBBIOaTOB 00. §ZS �The additions corne within the definition of new matter in Powder Co. v. Powder Works, 98 U. S. 126 : "By «new matter' we suppose to be meant new, substantive matter, such as would bave the effect 6i changing the invention, or of intro- ducing what might be the subject of another application, for a patent." The point is not whether means for the applica- tion of the principle of hydrostatie pressure had not been invented by Siebert, and whether he had not mistaken the nature of his invention when he applied for a patent, but it is whether it is proper for him to introduce into the claims of the re-issue a somewhat different invention from that which he had made when the original patent wàs granted ; for it cannot be forgotten that the invention which he actually made was a lubricator by hydrostatie and steam pressure, thôugh it is true that hydrostatie pressure was the active principle and was "revealed" in the invention. �"The legislature was willing to concede to the patentee the right to amend his specification, so as fully to describe and claim the very invention attempted to be secured by the origp inal patent, ànd which ■«yas not fully secured thereby in con- sequence of inadvertence, accident, ormistake; but was not willing to give him the right to patch up his patent by the addition of other inventions, which, though they might be his, had not been applied for by him, or, if applied for, had been abandoned or waived. For such inventions he is required to make a new application, subject to such rights as the public and other inventors may have acquired in the meantinïe." Powder Co. v. Powder Works, cited supra. �The case is a different one from that of the Yale Loch Mamufg Co. \.Scovill Manufg Co., recently before this court. In that case the invention described in the re-issue was manifestly the same which formed the subject of the original specification, but was there cramped within too narrow bounds. In this case, the invention which is described in the last two claims of the re-issue is not the same which was the subject of the original specification, and those claims are therefore void. �The bill should be dismissed. ����