Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/322

 DEDEBIOK V. CASSELL. 307 �The first and second are reissues derived from original 132,566, dated Ootober 29, 1872; the third and fourth are reissues derived from original 132,639, of same date as 132,666 ; the fifth is a reissue of original 151,477, dated June 2, 1874, and the sixth a reissue of original 177,216, dated May 9, 1876. As the case now stands the respondent is charged with infringing 22 claims, being the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, tenth, and eleveuth of 8,130 ;. the second and third of 8,316; the third, fifth, and eleventh of 7,983; the sixth, seventh, eighth, tenth, and eleventh of 8,312; the second, fifth, and sixth of 8,292; and the first of 8,296. The fourth and sixth of 7,983, and the fourth of 8,296, included in the bill, have been withdrawn; and the fifth of 8,292, which was not so included, has been introduced by agreement. �The answer denies the validity of the several patents and claims, and the charge of infringement. �The issues raised can only be disposed of intelligently, by consid- ering each patent and claim separately. It is not necessary, however, to state at large our reasons for the disposition made of them. To do 80 would require a written analysis of the varions machines and devices exhibited to prove anticipation, and a comparison of their sev- eral parts with the respective claims of the plaintiff, as well as a dissertation on the former state of the art, which would involve much useless labor and much more time than can be spared for the pur- pose. The questions of law are neither new nor difficult; and the questions of fact are sueh as commonly arise in patent cases. I shall, therefore, do little more than state conclusions. A few con- siderations, common to all the patents, and many of the claims, can be disposed of most profitably, at the outset. �As has been stated, the original letters were surrendered, and reis- sues obtained, (for separate minor, or subordinate, combinations as respects 132,566 and 132,639,) with the several claims of each original divided alnd enlarged. While this extensive division and enlarge- ment of claims (induced, probably, by a nervous apprehension of future difSculties) tends to confusion and litigation, and is there- fore reprehensible, it affords no legal ground of objection to the reissues, unless "new matter" has been introduced. The introduction of "new matter", is f orbidden by the statute. Nothing, however, plainly embraced in the specifications, modal, or drawiogs, is re- garded by the courts as "new matter:" Bentz v. Ella», 6 0. G. 117; Thomas y. Manuf'g Co. 16 0. G. 541 ; Glue Co. v. Upton, 6 0. G. 830; iAuitman v, Hollcy, 11 Blatchf. 317; Smith v. Goodyear, 11 0. G. 246; ��� �