OjRANDAtu. WALTERS. 661 �the specification of the original patent. The claim of the reissue is as followB : �" The loop-box, A, formed out of thin plate metal, as described, with the lugs or spiirs, H, projecting therefrom, to afflx it to a carriage top, either with or without the plate, 0, substantially as and for the purposes specifled." �The claim of the original patent was this : �" The box-loop, A, when formed as described with the lugs or spurs. H, ■npon its edges, and applied to a carnage top, by passing said lugs through the same, and through the metal-plate, C, and then bending them down upon the surface of said plate, substantially as described, for the purpose specifled." �It is apparent that the article speqified in the claim of the reissue is to be (1) a box-loop; (2) made of metal; (3) the metal so thin that the article. can, if desired, be struck up from it; (4) the metal of the loop to be a single piece, bent into shape; (5) the lugs to project from the loop towards the surface of the material to which the loop is to be aflBxed; (6) the loop to be capable of being affixed by passing the luge through the material and clinching them down tight. upon the other side, the clinching being done by bending them at right angles, and no rivets or screws being employed. ihese characteris- tics are all found in the specification of the reissue in connection with its claim. They are all foi^nd in the specification of the original patent. The drawings of the two patents are the same. The model filed with the application for the original patent shows all the fore- going characteristics- The claim of the original patent was so framed as to seem to require that the loop should be actually applied to a carriage top, in order to infringe. It also required that the metal plate, C, should be used in such application. Makers of loops were not makers of carriages, and it was obvions that the invention was really of the loop ready to be affixed, and that the inventor was entitled to have a claim which would reach the maker of the loop. Besides, even if the claim of the original would have extended to the maker of the loop, it might have been questioned whether it would reach him when he made a loop without the plate, C; and it was plain that that was only a stiffening or strengthening plate, an ad- junct, making the article better, perhaps, but yet not of the essence of the invention. The case was, therefore, one for a reissue. �It is objected that the specification of the original patent says that the series of lugs is on the lower edges of the loop; that is, project- ing from the lower edges of the long parallel sides of the loop and in the same plane with such sides. The drawings and model show such a construction. The reissue says that the lugs project from the ��� �
