Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/630

 618 FEDERAL REPORTER. �a right to restrict or enlarge his claim so as to give it valid- ity, and to effeotuate his invention." In that case the de- scription in the specification of the first patent was sufSeient for the claim of that patent, and that claim was sustainahle in a suit on that patent; yet that claim did not effectuate the real invention, which was the breaking apparatus alone, out of combination with the screen ; and the case was held to be one proper for a re-issue. �In Burr v. Duryee, 1 Wall. 531, it was held that the Boy- den- machine did not infringe the Wells re-issue, and that if it did the re-issue was void. The claim of the re-issue claimed "the mode of operation, substantially as herein described, of forming bats of fur fibers of the required varying thickness, from brim to tip, which mode of operation resulta from the combination of the rotating picking mechanism, or the equiv- alent thereof, the previous former and its exhausting mechan- ism, or the equivalent thereof, and the means for directing the fur-bearing current, or the equivalent thereof, as set forth." The court held that the invention of Wells was an improvement in a machine having certain peculiar devices, and that the Boyden machine had none of those peculiar devices, nor any substantial identity with them ; and that the original patent claimed the whole of Wells' invention — no more, no less. �In Seymour v. Oshorne, 11 Wall. 516, 544, it is said that the commissioner of patents may, on a re-issue, "allow the pat- entee to redescribe his invention and to inolude in the descrip- tion and claims of the patent not only what was well described before, but whatever else was suggested or substantially indi- cated in the specification or drawings which properly belonged to the invention as actually made and perfeeted. Interpola- tions of new features, ingredients, or devices which were neither described, suggested, nor indicated in the original patent or patent-office model are not allowed, as it is clear that the commissioner bas no jurisdiction to grant a re-issue unless it be for the same invention as that embodied in the original letters patent. * * * Corrections may be made in the description, specification, or claim, where the patentee ��� �