Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/514

 502 7EDBBAL BKFOBTEB. �ordinary cheek-book, and afford the usual facilities for record- ing the checks and for keeping a deposit account. The top check is folded down over the face of the stub, and the bot- tom check is folded up behind it, so that, when both checks are folded in, they and their stubs are completely protected by the cover. Any convenient number of these checks may thus be bound up, and the book, when complete, is about the length and breadth of an ordinary check, and remains of uni- form shape as the checks are removed. Another mode of practicing my invention is to take a piece of paper three times the length of the desired check. This paper is then divided by folding into three equal parts. The middle sec- tion, e, [may be] is divided by [a line] lines,ff, into two stubs. Over these stubs, and at their ends, the end divisions, gg, of the paper are folded, which ends constitute two checks. The paper thus folded has at its top a lip of paper, h, nearly as long as the length of the two stubs or middle section, and of sufficient width for binding purposes. These may be bound together in convenient number, and constitute a check-book of the size of an ordinary check." The're-issue contains two claims, as follows : "(1) The combination, in a cheok-book, of checks and stub pieces of substantially the same size, so united that two checks lie between every two stub pieces, substantially as speeified and set forth. (2) A check-book in which the checks are folded in upon the stub piece, which lies between the checks, and which is alone attached to the back of the book." �Taking what is above cited from the text of the specifica- tion of the re-issue, and reading what is outside of brackets, and what is in italics, and omitting what is inside of brack- ets, we have the text of the specification of the original pat- ent. The original patent had but one claim, which was in the same words as claim 2 of the re-issue. The drawings in the original and the re-issue are identical with each other. It is plain that the descriptions in the two specifications are the same; and that the only difference between the original patent and the re-issue consista in adding in the re-issue claim 1 therein. It is also plain that the drawings and ��� �