COVELIi V. PRATT. 863 �ïhis is undoubtedly a correct view. The specification of the re-issue is framed so as to cover the machines with re- cesses in the angles of the jaws to aet on corners that are not notched, while the specification and drawinga of the original patent show that the inventer did not oontemplate angles with recesses, and intended to operate only in cans, the cor- ners of which were notched. The answer alleges that the re-issue is nof for the same invention described or shown in the original; that new matter has been introduced into the specification of the re-issue not contained in the original specification ; and that, theref ore, the re-issue is invalid. It denies infringement. �The defendants' machine operates upon cans with solid corners, not notched, and although the jaws in their machine embrace the corners as well as the sides, and move to their work in a line diagonal to the square of the head, yet sueh jaws have recesses at the corners to accommodate the excess of metal there. In this respect the defendants' jaws have a pressure which existed in the broad side squeezers which existed before the plaintiffs' invention. �The plaintiff remedied existing difficulties in one way, and the defendant in another way, essentially different. The plaintiff discarded the recess at the corner, and notched the metal of the can. The defendants retained the recess, and did not notch the can, but made the jaws to embrace, at the same time, parts of two faces and a corner of the can, �The plaintiff set forth, in his original patent, no structure or invention which would warrant him in claiming the right to cover jaws moving diagonally to the square, and embracing parts of the two faces and a corner, if the angles of the jaws are recesses and the corner of the can is not eut away or notched. In this view, if the third claim of the re-issue be construed to cover the defendants' machine, it is invalid, as a claim not warranted by anything in the original; and, if such claim be limited to the plaintiff's real invention, the defend- ants do not infringe. �It seems, from these views, that the bill must be dismissed, with costs. ����
