Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/741

 GUNT POWDEB CO. V. OAIi. VIGOEIT POWDEE 00. T27 �■ ssuo. The specifications annexed to the original patent were ûiear and sufficiently explicit for the compound composed of uitro-glycerine and the inexplosive, porous substance men- tioned, and the claim was only for a composition of matter made of the ingredients in the manner and for the purposes described in them. There was, therefore, nothing to correct in a re-issue, according to the decision in Russell v. Dodge, 93 U. S. 463. The claim was as extensive as the invention spec- ified, and there is no pretence that this was not sufficient to cover a compound of nitro-glycerine with inexplosive, porous absorbents. �The case might be rested here ; but respect for the able and distinguisbed judges of the first and second circuits requires some notice of their decisions. They bave held that the re- issued patent is valid, against a defence that it covers a differ- ent invention from that described in the original patent, and that the term "inexplosive," in the original specifications, is used only in a relative sense, as compared with nitro-glycerine, and not in an absolute sense, excluding the entire use of ail explosive absorbents, whatever their degree of explosiveness. Their attention does not, however, appear to have been di- rected to the point, that if the original patent was valid and operative with the existing specifications, there was no case for a re-issue for the consideration of the commissioner. On the contrary, their opinions, like the argument of counsel in the case, go to show that the original patent was valid and operative, and that its specifications were sufSciently com- prehensive to include explosive absorbents, if the resulting compound could be saf ely used, stored, and transported. If their positions be sound, there was no ground for a re-issue, and the new letters cannot be sustained. �But, independently of this consideration, we are not able to ooncur with the learned judges as to their interpretation of the term "inexplosive "in the original patent, and consequent judgment that the re-issued patent is for the same invention. While we cannot look outside of the patent for the explaua- iion of terms in it which are not technical and are frea from ����