Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/479

 464 PEDEBAL BEPOETBB. �reissue is of all kinds of liquid mixed paint packed in tiglit vessels. The inTsntion of packing in vessels is not at all described, or even alluded to, in the original patent. So the question is presented whether the commissioner of patents is authorized to grant a reissue of a patent for an invention, in addition to that shown in the original, upon proof, in the absence of any drawing or model showing the inven- tion' in the original, that the addition was really a part of the same invention sought to be patented in the original. This question does not now seem to be open. �In Powder Co. v, Powder Works, 98 U. S. 126, the patents were for compositions or articles of manufacture like that here. That part of section 53 of the act of 1870, now section 4916 of the Revised Stat- utes, authorizing amendment of patents upon proof, in the absencp of any drawing or model, was relied upon and came under consider- ation. It was there held that this clause did not authorize the com- missioner to grant a reissue for a different invention; or to determine that one invention was the same as another or different one ; or that two inventions essentially distinct constituted but one. The question was left open as to whether that clause related to all patents, or only to patents for machines, but no room was left for adding to the in- vention by proof. Under that decision this reissue cannot stand. If it could stand, the only invention covered by it of which Averill was the first discoverer would be packing this pajnt in tight vessels. Such vessels impart no quality to the paint. They are no more use- ful to this kind of paint than to others, in proportion to the amount ased. The paint, on account of its valuable qualities, has found its way into extensive use through the ordinary vehicles for paints, and Averill has doubless contributed largely to its success, but it has been done by business enterprise rather than patentable invention. What he is really the first inventor of the defendants have not taken, �Lst there be a decree dismissing the bill of complaint, with costs. ��� �