Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/934

 922 FEDERAL RBPOBTER. �intended to extibit to the eye, in the different stages of fold- ing, a vrapper or paper box made from a single piece of pasteboard, and showing the patentee's method of locking the ends of the box, so as to distinguish his device from any in which "the tongue is inserted and withdrawn in the line of the opening strain, or in which the tongue projeots longi- tudinally from its flap, or is folded around the box in the same direction as the flap that it is intended to secure." �The second claim of the re-issue — the one alleged to be m- fringed— seems to be for the exact deviees, or combination of devices, described in the original patent. This is so evident that the defendant's expert, Mr. Hicks, when asked by the connsel of the defendant to state what changes, if any, had been made in the re-issue, frankly replied, (defendant's re- cord, 220) : "I have made the examination and comparison required by the question, and I find, in my opinion, no sub- stantial change in the subject-matter of the re-issue from the subject-matter of the original patent." �When a skillful expert, alive to the intereats of his em- ployer, makes such an ans-vrer, it may be saf ely assumed that the re-is9ue is for the same invention as the original patent. �2. As to the construction of Jhe second claim of the com- plainant's patent. It is insisted with mueh force, by the counsel for the defendant, that if it be as broadly construed, as the complainant contends for, it is void for want of nov- elty. The drawings and specifications, both in the original and the re-issue, exhibit the locking of the box by means of the shoulders of the tongues or corners as the distinguishing feature of the invention. If this claim be regarded as sim- ply introducing the tongues as corners, without preserving the locking quality referred to, it does not produce the resuit mbstantially as described, and is such a departure from the original invention as to render the re-issue invalid, being for a different invention. The evidence shows that there is noth- ing new in any of the instrumentalities used by the patentee, Heyl, except the interlooking the two outer flaps of the ends of the box in the manner set forth. �The counsel for the complainant speaks of the box de. ����