render of the same by the patentee,
and the obtaining of a reissued pat-
ent, to the same right, under the
reissued patent, that he had to the
old one; but he cannot be compelled
to take under the reissued one. id.

30. A portion, or the whole of an in-
vention, for a particular portion of
the United States, may be secured
by the original patent, and the re-
maining portion of the invention,
for the residue of the United States,
may be secured by the reissued pat-
ent.
id.

31.

The decision of the Commissioner
of Patents, in reissuing a patent,
under 13 of the Act of July 4th,
1836, (5 U. S. Stat. at Large, 122,)
that the reissued patent is for the
same invention originally discovered
and intended by the patentee to be
secured by the original patent, is not
re-examinable by this Court, unless
it is apparent, upon the face of the
patent, that the Commissioner has
exceeded his authority, or unless
there is a clear repugnancy between
the old and the new patents, or un-
less the new one has been obtained
by collusion between the Commis-
sioner and the patentee. Potter v.
Holland,

238

26. A licensee is one who has had
transferred to him, in writing or
orally, a less or different interest
than either the interest in the whole
patent, or an undivided part of such
whole interest, or an exclusive sec-
tional interest.
id.

493

45. In this case, the same result was
produced by the means specified in
said reissued patent of September
30th, 1856, and by the means used by
the defendant in his machine, that re-
sult being the forming of a hat-bat on
a revolving cone, exhausted at its
base, by causing a sheet of fur to be
directed to, and thrown upon, a sec-
tion of the revolving cone, as it ro-
tates, in properly regulated quanti-
ties, parallel with its axis, by certain
means used, so as to form the bat of
fur on the cone, of the desired shape
and thickness, at the will of the oper-
ator; but the means for producing
that result were different. In the
patent, a trunk or channel way inter-
posed between the picker cylinders
and the cone, and combined with a
hinged hood, to direct the sheet of fur
on to the cone, and produce a varia-
ble thickness of bat, was an essential
means; but, in the defendant's ma-
chine, there was no trunk or channel
way, and no hinged hood, but the fur
was directed on to the cone by the
power of the picking cylinders, and
the variable thickness of the bat was
produced by the manner of feeding
the fur. It was, therefore, held, that
the defendant's machine did not in-
fringe the patent.
id.

46. The reissued patent to Henry A.
Burr and others, of October 7th, 1856,
is for the process of making hat-
bodies described in said patent of
September 30th, 1856, in combination
with the method of hardening the
bat while on the cone.

47. If the patent of October 7th, 1856,
is for any method of hardening the bat
while on the cone, when such meth-
od is combined with the method of
forming a bat secured by the patent
of September 30th, 1856, then the de-
fendant does not infringe such com-
bination, because he does not infringe
the patent of September 30th, 1856;
and, if the patent of October 7th,
1856, is for the mode of hardening
described in that patent, then the de-
fendant does not infringe that patent,
because his mode of hardening the
bat is different.

(2.) Meyer's-Tin-Foil.

ia.

48. The patent granted to L. Otto P.
Meyer, April 4th, 1854, for an "im-
provement in treating caoutchouc,
and other vulcanizable gums," con-
strued to cover the use and applica-
tion of tin-foil, or its equivalents, to
the hard compound of india-rubber
and gutta-percha, during the process
of vulcanization, in the manner de-
scribed in the patent, to preserve
and retain, during the process of
heating and hardening, the form and
shape given to the material before
the heating process commences, with-
out any other pressure or mould,
Poppenhusen v. New York Gutta-Per-
cha Comb Co.,

See 41.

(3.) Meyer's-Grease.

184

49. The patent granted to L. Otto P.
Meyer, December 20th, 1853, for an

improvement in processes for vul-
canizing caoutchouc compounds,"
construed to cover the use of oil, or
other equivalent substance, applied to
the surface of the hard compound of
vulcanized caoutchouc or gutta-per-
cha, or other vulcanizable gums,
manufactured according to the pat-
tents granted to Charles Goodyear
and to Nelson Goodyear, and between
the gum and the plates of metal
or the moulds, substantially as de-
scribed in the patent, to produce
smooth and glossy surfaces upon the
material. Poppenhusen v. New York
Gutta Percha Comb Co.,
1841

50.

(4.) Frost & Munroe's-Bran-Duster.

Where, in the patent to Frost
and Munroe, of February 27th, 1849,
reissued March 13th, 1855, for an
"improvement in machinery for sep-
arating flour from bran," containing
four claims, the third claim was in
these words: "The upright station-
ary bolt, or bolt and scourer com-
bined, with its top or cover, or in
combination with claims 1, 2 and 4,
or either of them, or their equiv
alents, to produce like results in the
flouring process:" Held, that such
claim was bad, for uncertainty. Carr
v. Rice,
200

51. The fourth claim was one for "the
use of the revolving, distributing,
scouring and blowing cylinder of
beaters and fans, by which the ma-
terial is distributed, scoured, and the
flour blown through the meshes of
the bolting cloth:" Held, that such
claim was one to a legal result, and
bad on its face.
id.

52.

(5.) Imlay's-Rail-Road Cars.

The invention of Richard Imlay,
covered by his patent of September
21st, 1837, for an "improvement in
the mode of supporting the bodies of
railroad cars and carriages," was two
cylinder plates, male and female, one
within the other and acting in combin-
ation, one attached to the truck and
the other to the car body, substantially
as set forth in the specification,
whereby the truck and carriage were
combined to give support to all kinds
of eight wheeled railroad car bodies,
upon springs, or in any other form or
size, whereby the application of the
same essential means was substan-
tially made, to obtain the same object.
Imlay v. Norwich and Worcester R. R.
Co.,

227

53. The use and application of the two
cylinder plates, one within the other,
to give essential support to the rail-
road carriage, is the use and applica-
tion of the essential means discovered
by and patented to Imlay, and is a
violation of his patent, even though
other means are used in connection
with them, to give the required sup-

55. Wilson having invented a new me-
chanical automatic feed motion in a
sewing machine, which is not to be
used in conjunction with, or in aid of,
or in addition to, any old mode of
feeding, but is a new and independ-
ent element, in a combination con-
sisting of a table or platform to sup-
port the material to be sewed, and a
sewing mechanism, and such new
feed motion, such combination form-
ing a new machine: Held, that such
machine is a new and different ma-
chine from a machine containing the
combination of the old elements-a
table or platform, and a sewing
mechanism, and another kind of feed
motion-and is not merely an im-
provement on the machine containing
such combination of old elements;
and that Wilson has a right to cover
by his patent, the combination, in a
single machine, of the two old el-
ements a table or platform, and a
sewing mechanism-and a new feed
motion, and is not obliged to limit his
claim to an improvement on the old

feed motion.

(7.) Sickels-Steam-Engine.

id.

A libel of information against a ves-
sel, to procure her forfeiture for a
violation of the revenue laws, must
aver that she has been seized for the
offence, and that the seizure still sub-
sists. The Washington,

101

2. The seizure is a jurisdictional fact,
and the absence from the libel of any
averment of such seizure is a defect
of which advantage may be taken at
any stage of the cause.

id.

3. Libel dismissed for want of such
id.

averment.

4. A bill in Equity, founded upon four
patents for improvements in reap-
ing machines, they being improve-
ments intended to be used in all such
machines, and not limited to any par.