726 FEDERAL REPORTBB. �which the operation of the original patent could be changed by the re-issue. The object of the law was to enable pat- entees to remedy accidentai mistakes, and the law was per- verted when any other end was seeured by the re-issue." See, alsp, Railway v. Sayles, 97 U. S. 663. �In the light of this decision, and of the views expressed upon the act of congress, there can be but one answer to the ques- tion presented as to the validity of the re-issue upon which this suit is founded. Looking at the original pateat and the re-issued patent, and the specifications annexed to them, w& find that the material difference between them is as to the extent of the invention. The original patent covers a com- poundof nitro-glycerine and any inexplosive porous absorbent which will take up the nitro-glycerine and render it safe for transportation, storage, and use, without loss of its explosive power. The re-issued patent enlarges the scope of the inven- tion 80 as to embrace a compound of nitro-glycerine with any porous substance, explosive or inexplosive, and will be equally safe for use, transportation, or storage. �It is plain, from a comparison of the specifications of the two patents, that their difference is in their application — the one covering only a compound of nitro-glycerine with inex- plosive, porous, absorbent substances; the other covering a compound of nitro-glycerine with ail porous absorbents, whether explosive or inexplosive. We shall hereafter con- sider how far this changes the character of the invention. At present it is sufficient to say that it is manifest that if the re-issued patent, standing alone, would be valid and operative, the original patent, to the extent of its claim, would be valid and operative also ; in other words, that there is no founda- tion for the pretence that the original patent was invalid or inoperative from any defect of description. Its range or Bcope was more limited than the re-issued patent — that is ail. It was a valid and operative patent to the extent of its claim, and that covered the invention described. There was, there- fore, no case presented upon which the powers of the commis- sioner could be invoked. There was no invalid or inoperative patent, from a defect of description, to be corrected by a re- ����
