Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/348

 834 FBDBBAIi. BBFOBTEB. �BiGNALL ». Haevet and another. �{Circuit Court, JT. D. New York. October 25, 1880.1 �1. Re-Isstjed Lettebs Patent granted to John Deuchfield, January 16, �1872, for 14 years from April 20, 1858, " for an improvement in cool- ing and drying meal," held, not void for want of novelty. �2. Same— Identitt op Patentee. — A re-issue to John Dewchfleld is not �void because the original patent was issued to John Dewchfleld, whero the change in the letter was a mere clerical and accidentai miatake of the patent-offlce, and no question had been raised at the taking of the proofs as to the identity of the patentee, and where there was in fact sufflcient evidence given to show that the original and re-issue werîç issued to the same person. �Benjamin F. Thurston and Edward S. Jenney, for plaintiflf. �George Harding and George B. Selden, for defendants. �Blatchford, g. J. This suitis brought onre-issuedletterB patent granted to John Deuchfield, January 16, 1872, for 14 years from April 20, 1858, "for an improvement in cooling and drying meal." It is the same patent which was the Bubject of the suit in Herring v. Nelson, 14 Blatchf. 293. In that case, after full consideration, the re-issued patent was sustained against the objections that it was not for the same invention as the original patent ; that new matter had been introduced into the specification of the re-issue contrary to the statute ; and that the patentee was not the first inventor of what is claimed in the first claim of the re-issued patent. �The defendants in the present case do not ask for a review or reconsideration of any of the specifie questions disposed of in the former case. But two new matters are brought up on the question of novelty. One is a patent granted in England, Deeember 8, 1853, to Joseph Eobinson. The other is an addition granted July 31, 1840, to a French patent granted April 21, 1837, to one Cartier. �The Eobinson patent cannot be held to be an anticipation. It is clear, from the drawings of the plaintilï's patent, that the eurbs of the mill are open curbs, as distinguishedfrom close curbs ; that is, are the open curbs which were in general use in the American mills at the time. Open curbs are curbs or ����