Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/925

 WASHBDRN <fe UOSN MANDf'q 00. V. HAISH. 913 �might be inclined to take a different view of this claim of Glidden for this mode of constructing and attaching barbs. �But it will be recollected that the view which we have taken of these inventions, connected with the wire fence, is confined to the mode of constructing and attaching the barbs ; and if a person who bas invented and describes a particular form of barb, and a particular mode of attaching it to the wire, is entitled to a patent, we do not know why Glidden cannot be to this form of barb and mode of attachment, for the same reason that Kelly and Hunt were entitled to a pat- ent. We cannot overlook what has been done. The im- mense number of patents that have been granted forpeculiar modes of constructing barbs and attaching them to wire fences, and considering the success which has followed this barb of Glidden's, — although it may be, as was stated in the former opinion, near "the border line" between mechanical skill and invention, — yet we feel inclined to sustain it. �We have carefully examined the case cited, and decided at the present termby the supreme court of the United States — The Swain Turbine Manuf'g Co. v. Ladd. The principle fre- quently decided by that court, that the re-issue nliist be for the same invention as that shown in the original, is emphasized with special force in that case ; but we do not find it lays down any new rule, and espeeially comparing it with one decided at the same term — Bail v. Langles, 18 0. G. 1406. In re- lation to the power of the commissioner of patents to deter- mine whether there has been an accident, mistake, or inadvertence in the original patent, we are not disposed to change the rulings we have made upon the varions claims and re-issues in this case. �We hold, therefore, as we construe the originals and re- issues, there is jiothing contained in the claims of the re-issues which is not set forth in the specifications or drawings of the original patents. So far as there may be anything in the original opinion which may be construed to mean or imply that Hunt patented and had a valid claim to any and every form of barb upon a fence wire, this opinion is in- tended as a modification of the same. �v.7,no.ll-58 ��� �