Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/632

 620 FEDERAL REPORTBK. �to the corn-planter case the views he had set forth in GUI v. Wells. These cases are commented on in Herring v. Nelson, 14 Blatchf. 293, and in Christman v. Ilumsey, 17 Blatchf. 148. �In Russell v. Dodge, 93 U. S. 460, the original specifica- tion, as appears from Klein v. Russell, 19 Wall. 433, made it essential that the fat liquor should be heated to or near the boiling point, and then compounded with the other substances named, and then applied to the skins. The description to that effect was clear. The claim claimed "the process sub- stantially as herein described of treating bark-tanned lamb or sheep-skin by means of a compound composed and applied essentially as specified." The specification of the re-issue stated that it was desirable to beat the fat liquor to or near the boiling point, and that it was preferred to use the same iri connection with other ingredients, which other ingredients were named. The mode of application was set forth, and was to be by applying either the ,fat liquor or the compound to the ^kin. , ,The claims of the re-issue were these: "(1) The em- ployment of fat liquor in the treatment of leather, substan- tially as, specified. (2) The process, substantially as herein described, of treating bark-tanned lamb or sheep-skin by means of a compound composed and applied essentially as specified." In Russell v. Dodge tke court held that the re-issue was (1) for the use of fat liquor in any condi- tion, hot or cold, in the treatment of leather, and (2) for a process of treating the skin by means of a compound in which fat liquor is the principal ingredient; that thus the re-issue covered the use of the fat liquor, hot or cold, and when used alone or in a compound with other ingredients; that the le-issue omitted important particulars, so as to enlarge the scope of the invention ; and that the change made, by elim- inating the neoessity of using the fat liquor in a heated con- dition, and by making its use in that condition a mere matter of convenience, enlarged the character and scope of the in- vention, and made the re-issue a patent for a different inven- tion. This decision may well be a precedent for a case like it in its facts. But in every case a re-issue must be adjudged ��� �