Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/102

 88 FEDSBAL SEPOBTEB. �The re-issue says : �" My invention consists in the eombination of the side-bars and end-bars, with the end-bars elevated above the side-bars in such a manner that the elastie fabric, stretched f rom end-bar to end-bar, ean extend the eutire width of the frame over the side-bars, and an elastie fabric attached to the end-bars only of the frame; and it also consists in the eombination of the side-bars and end-bars of the frame, connected together by standards or corner-irons, B. By this arrangement the fabric is securely held." �There are four claims in the re-issue, the first and second being as follo-vs : �"(1) The eombination of the side-bars and end-bars and elastie coiled-wire fabric, D, attached only to the end-bars, with the end-bars of the fiume ele- vated above the side-bars, so that the fabric will be suspended above the side- bars from end to end of the frame. (2) The eombination in a removable bed- bottom or bedstead frame of the side-bars, A, standards or comer-piec6s, B, end-bars, C, and the elastie fabric, D, combined and arra;nged substantially as and "for the purposes specifled." �The third and fourth claims are substantially identieal with the two claims of the original patent. It was competent for the patentee to restate the invention in a re-issue, so as to point out and claim a characteristie feature which was "not clearly stated in the original, viz., the eombination of side-bars and inclined end-bars, and elastie fabric attached only to the end-bars, the end-bars being elevated above the side-bars, so that the fabric will be stretched from end- bar to end-bar above the side-bars. But an important question is whether it was permissible in the re-issue to abandon the inclined feature of the end-bars. The plaintiff insists that although the original imperfect patent has been enlarged in the re-issue, the lat- ter is not properly open to criticism, because it is the right of the pa'antee, if through palpable mistake or ignorance of the principles of his invention the patent has been cramped within too narrow bounds, to have such mistake corrected, and to have the real princi- ples and character of the invention stated in the re-issue. �The defendant insists that upon a comparison of the two patents, eitherwith orwithout a knowledge of the state of the art, the change manifestly introduces new matter; for the inclined end-bar is no longer one of the two featureB of the invention, but any end- bar is included which is sufSciently elevated above the side-bars to meet the liberal requirements of the first claim. The defendant also says that the validity of the re-issue is not of especial importance, because, if valid, the end-bars must, in view of the state of the art, necessarily ��� �