Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/810

 ''ISiS .FBDBBAIi. BEPOETEB. �faon in tfie re^issue of 160 d,eg. Fahrenheit as the proper j-degreeof'. temperature generally required to cause the print- ing to adhere tenaciQusly to the suriface,bf the tin* would seem to show thàt àlli idea of aiualgamatingrrthd color with the tin, as' distinctly indicated in the original, was abandoned. Noth- ing like aïnalgamation oaai take place by the application of any sùoh low degree of heat. ,• There are other differences, but: I think the foregoing are sufficient to bring the case mthin the prineiple of adjudged •cases in whieh the re-issue has been declared void. . �Acting upon the caution thrown out by Mr. Justice Brad- ley, speaking for the whole court, inRailway Go. v. Sayles, 97 U. S. 563, the courts are more and more iaclined "to regard ■with jealousy and disfavor any attempts to enlarge the scope of an application once filed, or of a patent once granted, the effeot of which would be to enable the patentee to appropriate other inventions made prior to such alteration, or to appro- priate that which has, in the meantime, gone into public usei.". �After considering the provisions of the original patent, and every suggestion therein made in regard to the nature and scope of the invention, it is difficult to find a sufficient or satisfactory ground for a surrender and re-issue. There was no want of harmony between the olaim and the specifications. The one corresponded with the other. The patentee olearly revealed what he proposed to do, to-wit, to indelibly print sheet tin by amalgamating metallic colors with the surface of the tin, and the process by which it was to be accom- plished. If he found, in actual practice, that the process would not produce the desired resuit, or that he could have a better resuit by bringing in, other instrumentalities, the office was open to him for a new patent, but not for a re-issue of the original, incorporating therein any new or different in- gredients. �That the changes made must be regarded as new and un- authorized, appeàrs from the decision of the court in the case of Rnssell v. Dodge, 93 U. S. MO. The original patent there was for a process of treating bark-tanned lamb or sheep- ����