780 FEDERAL REPORTER. �■with the statute. In this case the substantial part of the thing patented was imported into the application of a person not in existence, in his name, without the support of the oath required by the statute from either him or his personal representative, or anything but the act of those who had been his attorneys, but who could not be such, for he could have no attomey, then. In Railway Co. v. Sayles, 97 'U. S. 554, before cited, Mr. Justice Bradley says : "It will be observed that we have given particular attention to the original appli- cation, drawings and models filed in the patent office by Thompson and Batchelder. We have deemed it proper to do this, because, if the amended application and model filed by Tanner five years later embodied any material addition to or variance from the original, — anything new that was not coraprised in that, — such addition or variance cannot be sus- tained on the original application. The law does not permit such enlargements of an original specification, which would interfere with other inventors who have entered the field in the meantime, any more than it does in the case of re-issues of patents previously granted. Courts should regard with jealousy and disfavor any attempts to enlarge the scope of an application once filed, or of a patent once granted, the effect of which would be to enable the patentee to appropriate other inventions made prier to such alteration, or to appropriate that which bas in the meantime gone into public use." �This case is stronger against the patent than that there spoken of. Here the addition was made wholly without authority in fact, while there, apparently, it had the support of the inventors themselves ail the way through. �This objection is not specifically set up in the answer, and it is claimed that for that reason it cannot properly be taken notice of . Some defences to suits on patents, like those rest- ing upon prior knowledge and use by others, and those resting upon failure of the specification to disclose the whole truth in respect to the improvement, and others named in the statutes, have to be set out more fully in some cases than the ordinary rules of pleading would require, because the ����
