KELLS V. m'kBNZIE. 28'J �in supposiiig that he was entitled to have inserted in a reissue patent all that he might have applied for and had inserted in the original patent. * * * A reissue can only be granted for the same invention which was originally pat- ented. If it were otherwise, a door would be opened to the admission of the greatest frauds. Claims and pretensions, shown to be unfounded at the time, might, after the lapse of a few years, a change of the officers in the patent office, the death of witnesses, and the dispersion of documents, be set up anew, and a reversai of the first decision obtained without appeal, and without any knowledge of the previous investigations upon the subject. * * * Hence, there is no safe or just rule but that which confines a reissued patent to the same invention * * * which was described or indicated in the original." �Bearing in mind now that the reissue must be for the same inven- tion as the original patent, and that the faot that the patentee might have applied for and had inserted in his original patent all that he now claims is so conclusive evidence that his reissue is valid, let us examine the reissue under consideration in the light of these authorities. Is it for the same invention as the original? In the original patent. No. 124,590, the patentee specifies his invention in the following precise and unequivocal language : �"The invention consista (1) in a peculiarly-shaped double throat-piece; (2) in a mode of attaching and supporting removable dies ; (3) in giving the dies convex sides, so as to secure the flUing of corners and produce concave or recessed bricks ; (4) in a yielding box, to receive the proper length of clay for one or more sets of bricks, and to hold the same wliile the bricks are being severed; (5) in a sliding cut-ofE adapted to sever the bricks at each end; (6) in a combination of cam, forked lever, and Connecting rod for operating the cut-oli; (7) in driving the cut-off from the tub-shaftr (8) in an expelling screw cast with a shaft-socket and feather." �It will thus be seen that this statement of his invention, as well as the eight claims made in the original patent, relate solely to that portion of the machine in front of the forward standard, at the point where the clay passes beyond the action of the screw and is moulded to pass through the dies. There is no intimation .that he claims any novelty in the general construction of the machine, or of its tub or standards, or of any combination by which the tub is attached to the standards, or the standards are held in place and prevented from spreading ; although it is true that the drawings annexed to his patent show a machine eompleted in all these particulars. This patent was issued March 12, 1872. The defendants began building machines similar in their general construction to complainant's machine, but avoiding the use of that portion of the machine covered by com- plainant's patent, in the fall of 1877. In July, 1879, complainant v.9,no.5— 19 ��� �
