Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/295

objections that have been insisted upon and presented by this plea.

Upon all the facts, as they are disclosed, the whole structure of the plea, in the light of the authorities, must fail; and the demurrer will be sustained, and the party must plead to the merits.

---

The Yale Lock Manuf’g Co. v. The Scovill Manuf’g Co.

(Circuit Court, D. Connecticut.⁠June 29, 1880.)

1. Re-issue No. 8,783—Re-issue—Rev. St., § 4916.—A re-issue can only be granted for the invention which formed the subject of the original patent.

2. Same—Same—Same.—The specification may be amended so as to make it more clear and distinct; the claim may be modified so as to make it more conformable to the exact rights of the patentee, but the invention must be the same.

Powder Co. v. Powder Works, 98 U. S. 126, followed.

A re-issue is valid where the specification describes the invention as consisting of two separate and independent features, although it was described in the original specification as consisting of those two features in combination.

A claim in a re-issue for a post-office box with a metallic door and frames is void, where the original invention was described as a series of metallic doors and door-frames, with a series of wooden pigeon-holes, forming a continuons metallic front.

3. Same—Same—Disclaimer.—It is proper to disclaim unlawful claims introduced into a re-issue.

O’Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62.

Schillinger v. Gunther, 16 O. G. 905.

Frederic H. Bells and Causten Browne, for plaintiff.

Charles R. Ingersoll, for defendant.

Shipman, D. J.⁠This is a bill in equity, based upon the alleged infringement of re-issued letters patent, No. 8,783, dated July 1, 1879, which was issued to the plaintiff as assignee of Silas N. Brooks, administrator of Linus Yale, Jr., for an improvement in post-office boxes. The original pat-