510 FEDERAL REPORTES. �than was previously included in his original patent. If this means only that the claim of .the re-issue is broader than the claim of the original, it amounts to nothing. If it means, in the language of the statute, that the re-issue is not "for the same invention," as those words are interpreted, the de- fence cannot prevail. �No other defence set up in the answer is proved. No de- fence of abandonment is set up. Ail the views presented on the [part of the defendant have been considered, and there must be a decree for the plaintiff for an account of profita, and an ascertainment of damages and a perpetuai injuno* tion, with costs. ���StEOBEIDGE V. LiNDSAT, Sterritt & Go. (Circuit Court, W. D. Pennsylvania. March 28, 1881.) �1. iNrEINQEMENT— DrVISION OF DbVICB. �A patent cannot be defeated by divlding a patented device tnto two parts, wMch, when combined, pioduce the same resuit ia sub- stantially the same way. �Wheeler v. Clipper Mower d Beaper Oo. 6 Fish. 2. �2. Same— Re-1ssue No. 7,583. �Re-issue No. 7,583, for an improvement in coffee-milla, "hdd^ in- fringeJ. Strobridge v. Lindsay, Sterritt dt Co. 2 Fed. Rep. 692.— [Ed. �In Equity. Sur rule for an attachment against defendants for contempt. �Takeivell e Kerr, for rnle. �B. F. Thurston and Geo. H. Christy, for defendants. �AcHESON, D. J. In this case, the court, upon final hearing, held that the coffee-mill complained of, manufactured by Landers, Prary & Clark, and sold by the defendants, infringed the first claim of the plaintifE's re-issued patent, viz.: "A coffee or similar mill, having a detachable hopper and grind- ing-shell formed in a single piece and suspended within the ��� �
