Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/424

elÇ FEDEEAL EEPOBTEB. �Stephenson V. The Second Avenue Eaileoad Company. �(Circuit Court, S. D. New York. January 20, 1880.) Patent — Re-issue — Identitt oj" Invention. �Infringement of Patent. �Wheeler, J. The only real question presented at the hearing of this cause upon the pleadiuga as drawn, underthe law, and the evidence admissible in support of them, is whether the re-issued patent No. 6,697, dated Oetober 11, 1875, is for the same invention as that for which the original patent No. 61,482, dated January 22, 1867, was granted. Upon a careful examination of each, although there are sev- eral things mentioned and described in the specification of the re-issue not mentioned or described in that of the orig- inal, and although the claims are quite different, there is nothing mentioned or described in the specification of the re-issue not shown in the drawings or model of the original, so far. as has been observed, and there is no element of any combination,or arrangement,or device, claimed in the re-isssue that is not either mentioned or described in the original as performing, or intended to perform, the office assigned to it in the reissue. Therefore, it cannot be held that the re-issue is for any different invention from that described in the original. �Let a deeree be entered for the orator for an injunction against further infringement of any of the patents described in the bill exoept No. 1,969, dated June 14, 1864, for a design, which has expired, and for an account according to the prayer of the bill, with costs. ��� �