Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/924

 910 iraOEBAIi BEPOBTBB. �It îs not deemed necessary to attempt here any full discus- sion of the law in regard to the re-issue of patents. It is enough to state, as a general rule, that what is claimed in the re-issue must be found in the original specifications, drawings, and models; that is, "no new matter can be introduced into the specifications." The invention as claimed in the re-issue must be found properly described in the original specifica- tions. In the language of the supreme court in Powder Co. V. Powder Works, 98 U. S. 138 : "The specifications may be amended so as to make it more clear and distinct ; the claim may be modified so as to make it more conformable to the exact rights of the patentee ; but the invention must be the same. So particular is the law on this subject that it is declared that no new matter shall be introduced into the specification. This prohibition |s general, relating to ail patents; and by 'new matter' we suppose to be meant new substantive matter, such as would have the effect of changing the invention, or of introducing what might be the subject of another application for a patent. The danger to be provided against was the temptation to amend a patent so as to cover improvements which might have corne into use, or might bave been invented by others, after its issue. The legislature was willing to concede to the patentee the right to amend his specification so as to fuUy describe and claim the very inven- tion attempted to be secured by his original patent, and which was not fuUy secured thereby in consequence of inadvertence, accident, or mistake; but was not willing to give him the right to patch up his patent by the addition of other inven- tions, which, though they might be his, had not been applied for by him, or, if applied for, had been abandoned or waived." �So in Riisse.ll v. Dodge, 93 U. S. 463, Mr. Justice Field said : "And as a re-issue can only be granted for the same inven- tion embraced by the original patent, the specification could not be substantially changed, either by the addition of new matter or the omission of important particulars, so as to enlarge the seope of the invention as originally claimed. A defective specification could be rendered more definite ànd certain, so as to embrace the claim made, or the claim could ����