Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/428

414 FEDERAL REPORTER. �invention îs designed to avoid such a method of construction. It is useless to say that by a rigid handle he merely meant a bail without spring action, for the entire paragraph shows that he also meant a handle so jointed or hinged to the stopper that it could be turned away from the mouth of the bottle. He intended to point out that his handle or bail was both hinged to the stopper and had elastio legs. The re- isBue covers a device in which the bail is attached to the stopper in any manner. The hinged construction is briefly alluded to as one which accomplishes a certain resuit, �The file wrapper and contents of the original patent further- more show that the specification acoompanying the first and rejected application described the same method of construc- tion which now re-appears in the re-issue, and which the patentee, apparently, was obliged to eliminate from the specification before he could obtain a patent. The handle was to be attached to the stopper in any manner, and waa preferably staple shaped. The application was tbrice re- jected. Finally, the quoted paragraph respecting rigid handles was inserted, and the patent was granted. In the original patent, the patentee informed the public, with precision and after deliberation, that his invention was an improvement upon a rigid handle, and limited himself to a hinged or jointed handle. It has now become important for the plain- tiff to possess himself of the territory which his assigner attempted to occupy, but abandoned, and the ownership of which he virtually disolaimed. �A comparison of the two patents shows that the case is clearly within the principles which bave been recently and frequently announced by the supreme court as applicable to re-issues. The re-issue is void, because it is, on its face, for a different invention from that which was embraced in the original patent. Eussell v. Dodge, 93 U. S. 460; Railway Co. V. Sayles, 97 U. S. 554 ; Powder Co. V. Powder Works, 98 U, S. 126; LeggeU v. Avery, 17 0. G. 445. �The bill should be dismissed. �Note. See Siebert Cylinder OU Cup Co. v. Harper Steam Luhncaior Co. ante, 328. ����