Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/932

 920 FEDEEAL BEPOBTEB. �6. Same— Patent No. 193,950. �And hdd, aîso, that the oomplataant's re-issued patent fs not infringed by the defendant'a use of boxes manuf actured under patent No. 183,950, granted to Lockwood and Lyncb, October 31, 1876, because such boxes do not contain the flap-locking or hooking device deemed an essential quality or characteristic of complaiûant'^ said re-issued patent, but have a flap-tucking device with longues, vifiich iiick but do not lock. �In Equîty. �Munson v. PhiUipp, for complainant. �William A. Redding, ior defendant. �Nixon, D. J. This s«it is for infriiigement of re-isstied letters patent No. 7,488, granted to the complainaivt, as the assignee of Henry E. Heyl, Pebruary 6, 1877, for "improve- ment in paper boxes." The original patent to Heyl was dated June 30, 1874, and numbered 152,686, and embraced a single claim, to-wit : "A paper or pasteboard wrapper se- cured iu a tubular form, and closed at one or both ends by portions of the sides thereof, bent over and locked into each other by, laterally extending tongues and corresponding open- ings, as described." �On the twenty-first of September, following, the patentee, Heyl, filed a petition in the patent-office to surrender the said letters patent, alleging that the same were not valid or avail- able to him, by reason of an insufficient or defective specifi- cation, and asking for a re-issue on amended specifications. These contained three claims, the fir-et and second of which related to a particular-shaped kerf, which was not claimed in the original specification. The commissioner decided against the application, on the groundthat "considerable newmatter had been introduced into the amended specification, which was unauthorized by the original drawing and model;" and for the forther reason that, in view of the state of the art, it was not invention to construct a paper box with any particu- lar-shaped kerf, but simply a matter of judgment, depending upon the exigencies of the case. No further steps were taken by the patentee for are-issue until November 17, 1876, when new amendments to the specifications, containing four claims, were filed in the office. After varions changes and modifica- ����