Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/925

WASHBUEN & MOEN MANDF'G CO. V. HAISH. 911 �be so modified as to correspond with the specification." The doctrine of these authorities is that the inventer may, in his specifications on the re-issue, make his description more f ull and aoourate ; but he must not substantîally change it so as to describe another device, or eover anything not in the original. It would seem from the specification and testimony of Hunt that his idea of the mode of utilizing his device was for the user to purohase the spurs and fix them upon sach of the wires composing his fence as he thought desirable. But experience demonstrated that the value of the invention con- sisted not in teaching each fence builder how to barb his own wire, but, in the introduction of barbed lyire as an article of manufacture, and in furnishîng to the consumer the manu- factured article ready for use without further need of mechan- ical skill, or the use of tools, to fit it for its purpose, beyond the single act of fastening it to the posts. It can hardly need evidence or argument to prove that Hunt's device is much more aecurately described as "barbed fence wire" than as a method of barbing wire ; and if he was the first to suggest the idea of barbing wire for fence purposes, he had the right to cover that by his patent. The specifications in the orig- inal and re-issued patent are substantially the same. No material change is introduced, and whatever change is made ia merely that of giving point or direction to the invention now claimed. �The next patent in order of time involved in this contro- versy is that issued June 25, 1867, to Lucien B. Smith, which, although earlier in matter of date than Hunt's, yet is of later conception, Hunt's invention going back to 1865. The only advance made in the art by Smith's invention was the idea of fixing the barbs by the short kinks, or bends in the wire, so as to prevent them from moving lengtbwise on the wire. So far as this device was ah improvement on Hunt's, it may, perhaps, be held valid; but it cannot be held to inolude ail equivalent methods of preventing lateral motion, because Hunt had suggested keeping the spurs at a suitable distance apart, by means of "flanges or otherwise." This ����