Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/210

 198 7KSEBAL BSPOBTEB. �The case was elaborately argued at the circuit, counsel oocupying several daya in the presentation of their views. Their arguments were taken down by a short-hand writer, and printed, thus enabling me to read what I had patiently lietened to in the oral discussion. �The question before the court was the validity of the re- issued patent to the complainant. The main objection urged to its validity was that it was for a different invention from that described in the original patent. And upon that point the argument was fuU, elaborate, and able. It is difficult to see how the position of the complainant in support of the patent could have been more cogently presented. �The original patent was for a compound of nitro-glycerine, with an inexplosive porous absorbent, which would take up the nitro-glycerine, and render it safe for transportation, storage, and use, without loss of its explosive power. The re-issued patent is for a compound of nitro-glycerine with any porous absorbent, explosive or inexplosive, which will be equally safe for transportation, storage, and use, without loss of explosive power. In other wbrds, the re-issued pat- ent drops the limitation of the original, and seeks to cover ail compounds in which nitro-glycerine is used, in connection with a porous absorbent, in the production of blasting pow- der, thus practically securing to the patentee a monopoly of nitro-glycerine in the manufacture of that powder. The court held that the re-issued patent was, therefore, more extensive in its scope than the original patent, and on that ground was invalid. It covered a different invention. �The court also held that the original patent was neither invalid nor inoperative from any defective specification, but was valid and operative for the invention described ; and that this appeared upon a comparison of the.two patents, the re-issued patent differing from the original only in the extent of its claim; and that, therefore, the eommissioner exceeded his jurisdiction in granting a re-issue at ail, as well as on the ground that the re-issued patent was for a different inven- tion. This latter position was not, it is true, disoussed in the oral argument, but it is raised by tha pleadings, and ����