lilS JPBDBRAL REPORTEE. �tibn is whether it is oiie which the courts will correct by destroying a new patent after the old one has been surren- dered. �Upon questions of the validity of a patent, or of a re-issue, in ail great matters of novelty and construction and patent- ability, the decision of the commissioner ia not final, though bis jurisdiction ia undbubted; but I repeat that urgent rea- sons of justice require that upon the mare question whether the papef called a re-issue shall be given, his finding should be, as it has hitherto always been held to be, conclusive. �Again, if it be found that the claims of the original patent were valid, and that the re-issue for the same invention states the claim or claims in a different way, — though it may be a better way for the patentee, — the change does not of itself vitiate the new patent; but, on the contrary, the original claims are conolusively presum,ed to have been made as they were through inadvertence, accident, or mistake. The law is so well settled that most of the reports do not contain the claims of the two patents ; but I suppose that no re-issue has ever contained the exact claims of the original, and this can be discovered, incidentally, in many of the cases, and posi- tively in some, where the very point is passed upon. See Allen V. Blunt, 3 Story, lAi; Stimpgon v. Weatchestcr R. Co. 4 How. 380; O'Reiily v. Morse, 15 How. 62; Batten v. Tag- gert, 2 Wall. Jr. lai; S. G. 17 How, 74; Bejinet v. Fowler, 8 Wall. 444; The Goodyear Cases, 2 Wall. Jr. 283, 356; 2 CUff. 351; 9 Wall. 798; Seyinour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516; Roherts V. Ryer, 91 U. S. 150; Marsh v. Seymour, 97 U. S. 348 ; remarks of Bradley, J., in Powder Co. v. Powder Mills, 98 U. S. 136, and oi the same learned judge in Carlton v. Bokee, 17 Wall. 463, where he intimates that a re-issue may be good as to those claims which agree with the invention, and void as to others which exeeed it; Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 780; Conover v. iioac/i, 4 Fisher, 12; Stevens v. Pritchard, 10 0. G. 505 ; Hening v. Nelson, 14 Blatchf. 293 ; Johnson N. Flushing R, Co. 15 Blatchf. 192; Analin Co. v. Higgins, la; Q20 ;. Pearl v. Ocean Mills, 11 0. G. 2. None of ��� �
