Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/629

 WILSON V. COON. 617 �1870, and of section 4916 of the Eevised Statutes, is the same, and the cases for a re-issue are the same under ail these enactments. �The view urged for the defendants is that the original pat- ent was intended to secure the invention of a collar having, as its only peculiarity, two separate short or sectional bands, each commencing at the center, or at any point between the center and the end, and extending to and beyond the end of the collar; that the original specification and drawings show applied to the body of the collar two short bands, each cov- ering a section, as distinguished from one long continuons band along the entire lower portion of the collar ; that such invention was fully covered by the claim of the original pat- ent, and was correctly described and represented in the specification and drawings of the original patent; that the original specification and claim contained ail that the in- vention really was; that the re-issue covers a new inven- tion; that in the re-issue the invention is made to be one of a collar having curved and graduated bands, and having the rear button-hole thrown into the top or body of the collar, above the band; and that the re-issue is so framed as to cover a long continuons band, narrowed in the center. �A reference to cases decided by the supreme court in regard to re-issued patents will show that the views before set forth on the subject of re-issues are consistent with those decisions. In Batten v. Taggert, 17 How. 74, a patentee invented an apparatus for breaking coal, and combined it with an appa- ratus for screening coal, which he did not invent, and took a patent for the combination only. Afterwards he took a pat- ent for the said breaking apparatus. Afterwards he surren- dered both patents and took a re-issue of the first one for th& breaking apparatus alone. It was^held that, although he had in the first patent described the breaking apparatus without claiming it by itself, and although he had surrendered th& second patent, the re-issue was valid. The re-issue described essentially the same machine as the first patent, but claimed,^ as the thing invented, the breaking apparatus only, The- court say : "And this the patentee had a right to do. He had ��� �