8Û0 FEDERAL REPORTBB. �decisîbri aa final. This question has been recently examined by vMr. Justice Eield, sitting in tàe circuit court, in the case of TheOianiPmder Go. v. The Califomla Co. 18 0. G. 1340.* inwJiich be holds that «tbe examination ai the original and re-issued patents by tibe roourt/is always allowable, "to ses ■whether or not they disclose oh their face a c&se in which the cominissioner bas authority to aet, or^ whether he has ex- ceeded bis authority in issuing letters for an invention dif- ferent from tljat described in the original patent. If they disielose a casedh which the commissioner'has no jurisdic- tioii; to act, or a case in which, by bis determination, he haariexceeded bis jurisdiction, the re-is«oed letters must fall." �I !3îaking this view of the re-issue, I bave not tiiougbt it nec- essary , to protract the opinion by formally ©xamining the otb^r grounds of defence so ably presented by^the couûsel for the defendants, viz.: that the re>i8sued patent ifi Toid (l)fdr want of norelty, and (2) for want'of utilityi > l't may be said, bowever, in regard to the first, that if no Msult is in fact reàched, by the application of the paiût by means of a press, different from that produced by the useof the bob and sten- cil in japanning,: it is questioriable whether such a change ôî method invol^esianything more than the exBrdise 6f skill aiid good judgment. More was claimed in the original patent, tO'Wit, an indelible union by amalgamation of metallio colots withtbe surface of the tin, ■ But this seems to hate been tïeated in'the re-issue as: a matter of no consequencei What, then, ia left for thô inyeniion but the substitution of old equivalent n^eans for the production of possibly better, but not differ- ent, resiilts ? See Stimpson 'riWoodman, 10 Wall. 117 ; Smith Y. Nichols,. 21 Wall. 112. �In regard to the lack of utility, if the process is tô become praetically usefol, I think there must be, in its actual Use, a wide deparfcure from the methods and means specified in the re-issue. The evidence shows that 160 deg. Fahrenheit is as much too low in temperature, as an hour and a balf is too short in time, to sufficiently harden the coloring. Courts are, indeed, liberal in construing descriptions in patents, wbere �*8. C. 4 FED. Eep. 720. ����
