Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/321

 306 FEDERAL REPORTER. �Dederick V. Cassell and others.* {Circuit Court, E. £). Pennsylvania. October 6, 1881.) �1. Patent— Rbissue — Division and Enlahgement of Claims — What is not �"New Mattbr." �While such extensive division and enlargement of claims in reiasues as tends to confusion and litigation is repreliensible, it affords no legal ground of objec- tion to the reissues unless "newmatter" is introduced, and nothing plainly embraced in the specifications, model, or drawings is " new matter." �2. BAME — SUBOKDINATE COMBINATIONS NOT CLAIMED IN ORIGINAL PaTENT. �While language may be found in OUI v. WdU, 22 Wall. 1, and a few other cases, which, standing alone, might justify a belief that where a general combi- nation embraces minor subordinate combinations not claimed in the original patent, a subsequent introduction of claims for the latter is invalid, yot such a conclusion cannot be reoonciled with what has been decided elsewhere, both before and since. �3. Same — Presumption ab to Validitt. �A reissue is entitled to a presumption in its favor, and to justify its rejection, on the allegation of " new matter," it must clearly appear that such new mat- ter has been introduced. �4. Same — Combination— Infhingbmbnt. �A new combination is infringed whenever another employa substantially the same combination in plan and elements, operating in the same manner and producing substantially the same rfesult. The doctrine of equivalents, with slight modification, applies with as much force to such an invention as to any other. �5. Bame — Improvements in Balikg Presses. �Claims Nos. 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 of reissue 8,130, No. 3 of reissue 8,316, Nos. 3 and 11 of reissue 7,983, No. 6 of reissue 8,292, and No. 1 of reissue 8,296, for improvements in baling-presses, hdd valid, and respoudent's machine Jield to be an infringement. �6. Same. �Claims Nos. 4 and 6 of reissue 8,130, No. 2 of reissue 8,316, No. 5 of reissue 7,983, Nos. 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 of reissue 8,312, and Nos. 2 and 5 of reissue 8,292, hdd invalid. �Hearing on Bill, Answer, and Proof. �Bill for injunction against infringement of reissuea of patents issued to complainant for improvements in baling-presses. The answer denied novelty, alleged that the reissues contained "new matter," and denied infringement. The facts are sufliciently stated in the opinion. �L. Hill, for complainant. �G. E. Marsh, J. Pusey, and Collier e Bell, for defendants. �Butler, D. J. The snit embraces seven patents, for "improvements in baling-presses," numbered 8,130, 8,316, 7,983, 8,312, 8,292, 8,296, and 187,220. The last named, however, the plaintiff has withdrawn. �*Keported by Frank P. Prichard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar. ��� �