Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/115

 100 FEDERAL REPORTER. �side the band and through the loops, making a firm and durable con- nection between the bands and wires. After that and before the reissue cages were invented and brought into use having their hori- zontal, bands made tubular, of sheet metal, with holes above and below, through which the upright wires were placed, having bands like loops extending outwardly within;the hollow bands to form a connection between the wires and bands. The reissue is for a cage having horizontal bands of sheet metal or other suitable material provided with holes that engage with the vertical filling wires, which have loops or erimps that fit the holes and effectually prevent the vertical displacement of the horizontal band, and a locking-bar like that in the original to prevent either of the filling wires from being pressed in so as to disengage its erimps from the cross or horizontal band. The first claim is for the combination'in a cage of filling wires provided with loops or erimps, and cross-bands provided with holes, adapted to engage with the loops or erimps. �There is nothing in the original patent about the engagement of the loops with the slots otherwise than by being hold together by the locking bar. The loops shown in the drawing are not shaped to, of themselves, hold the cross-band in place. The connection between the bands and the wires depended wholly upon the locking-bar. The combination mentioned in the first claim of the reissue would not be an operative combination at all with the parts made only as described in the original. The invention sought to be covered by the reissue is of a cage held in shape by the utting of erimps in the wires to holes in the cross-bands, while that in the original is of a cage held in shape by the locking of loops on the wires through slots in the cross-bands. These inventions are essentially different. The reissue was, apparently, expanded beyond the original to cover the intervening inventions of others. The language of the supreme court in Swain Turbine e Manuf'g Co. v. Ladd, 19 0. G. 62, seems pecu- liarly applicable to this case, It is said there that the statute was never intended to allow a patent to be enlarged except in a clear case of mistake, and that there is no safe or just rule but that which confines a reissue patent to the same invention which was described or indicated in the original. This reissue seeks to enlarge the inven« tion, as well as the patent, and is not supported by the original. �Let there be a decree that the reissued patent is invalid, and that the bill of complaint be dismissed, with costs. ��� �