Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/622

 608 FEDEBAIi BEPOBTEB. ���Atwatbb Manup'g Co. and othera v. Beechek Manuf'g Co. �[Cireuit Court, D. Connectieut. July 21, 1881.) �] Rb-Isbxjb No. 8,694— Diks poh Pokming Heads of Wagon Kino-Bolts— Validitt — Infbingembnt. �Re-issued letters patent No. 8,694, granted May 6, 1879, to Robert R. Miller, for dies for forming the heads of king-bolts for wagons, hdd void as to iiafirst claim, and valid and infringed as to its second claim. �2. Original Specipioation— Rb-Iss0e Specification— " New Matteb." �The original specification describing the invention as consisting of a series of dies, and disclaiming the use of the dies separately, the description in the re-issue of separate forming dies is the introduction of " new matter," and the claim thereon ia theref ore void. �3. Re-Issub — "New Matter." �" New matter" cannot be introduced into a re-issued patent, even though it be the invention of the patentee, and was inadvertently omitted from the original application or specification. �Charles B. Ingersoll and George S. Prinale, for plaintiffs. �Hector T. Fenton, for defendant. �Shipman, D. J. This is a bill in equity, founded upon the infringe- ment of re-issued letters patent No. 8,694, issued May 6, 1879, to Bobert E. Miller, assignor to the plaintifi, for improvement in dies for forming the heads of king-bolts ifor wagons. The original patent was issued to Miller, February 22, 1870. �The patented dies consist of two pairs, one for forming and the other for bending the blank. * The two claims of the re-issued patent are as follows : �" (1) The die Bbb' and the die C, constructed and combined substantially as and for the purpose shown. (2) The series of dies, B, C, D, and E, for form- ing clip king-bolts, substantially as shown and described." �The first claim relates to the forming dies, the second to the series of dies. Infringement of both claims was clearly proved. The at- tempts by the defendant to disprove infringement and novelty of invention were alike unsatisf actory. The only question of importance in the case relates to the validity of the first claim of the re-issued patent. In the specification of the original patent the patentee said : "It (my invention) consists in the series of dies constructed and operating as hereinafter more fully described," and "I wish it to be understood that I do not claim either of the dies herein described separately." The original claim was for "the series of dies A, B, and 0," etc. In the re-issue, the patentee says : "It (the invention) con- sists principally in the forming dies constructed in the manner sub- stantially as hereinafter shown." The specification of the re-issue omits the disclaimer which has just been quoted. ��� �