398 I FEDERAL REPORTER. �the oircular case, and also the extended tube case, the latter to be used for lighting at a height. Each form of case was to have in it the same ftpparatus. In the reisBues, Nos. 7,927 and 8,490 show only a case of circular form for a pocket lighting device; and No. 7,928 shows only an extended tube case, for a gas-lighting torch. In each reissue the apparatus in the case is substantially the same, but each form of apparatus is fairly a distinct and separate part of the thing patented. The pocket lighting device cannot be used to light gas at a height, nor can the extended tube device be carried in the pocket. �8. There is no warrant for the suggestion that what is described and shown in the original specification and drawings is neceasarily to be regarded as so dedicated to the public that if not claimed in the original it cannot be claimed in a reissue. �9. It is contended that No. 8,490 is void because it is not for the same invention as the original. One objection urged is that No. 8,490 speaks of the device as one for carrying in the pocket, and as a pocket lighting device, while the original did not speak of the pocket. But the original spoke of the circular case as one for con- venient use, and as best suited for general use, and the structure, as shown in the drawings, and, doubtless, in the model, is, manifestly, one convenient for the pocket. What is said on this subject in No. 8,490 cannot be regarded as new matter. There is no difference in structure, or substantial ^.Iteration in drawings, or change of capacity. Various verbal criticisms are made in argument as to differences between the text of the original specification and that of No. 8,490, and as to differences in the drawings; but no witness for the defend- ant points out any of them as of any materiality, nor does a careful examination of those suggested show that they are of the least importance. �10. The defendant sets up against the novelty of the first five claims of No. 8,490, patent No. 48,459, granted to Henry B. Stock- well, June 27, 1865, for an "inaproved fulminate gas-lighter. " That patent bas been put in evidence by the defendant, but no expert wit- ness for the defendant speaks of it, while the testimony for the plain- tiffs shows that it does not anticipate those claims of No. 8,490. In each one of those claims there is a strip or coil of repeating match supported by a nose-piece, which is attached to the case and projects beyond it,' and holds the match up against the action of the igniting device. . There is no such arrangement, nor any equivalent for it, in parts or operation, in No. 48,459. ��� �
