sides of the boxes, the value and security of the Yale box would be seriously impaired. The metallic casing or flange upon the outside of the sides of· the Scovill box has an office, viz., that of protection to the wood-work against 'outside attack, which the metallic ear upon the insid-e of the Yale box does not have. The motions are denied·
GOULD V. SPIOER
D. 'RhodsIBlantl. August 8, 188J;» '
V OlD, JrOl' VARIAKCB.
;Ihlllquity. .' Before
Thomas W., Olarke, for complainant.
BenjaminF. Thu1-stOrt, for
GRAY and .. . Justice. In the original patent the only invention claimed or described, or appeari,ng upoIiits fiice'tohave been intended to be claimed or described, is an arrangement of grate-bats, with projections on the under side of each end, iti ,combination with two rotary cams, in contact wi'th The reissue, so far as it relates to the seven new introduced therein, is void, because of it,S varillnce from the originsJpatent; and it is unnecessary to consider the other grave objections to the validity of the reissue, founded on the lapse of .time before it was applied for. But the validity of the claim made patent, and distinctly repeated in the reissue, is not affected. ' The result is, that: the first,demurrer, which goes to the whole bill, must be overruled, and the second denl'urrer, filed in aocordance with and, limited to that part of the bill the thirty-second. rule in which sets forth the invalid chtiIris,must be sustained, and the case stand for replication and proofs upon the first olaim.
(OireuU Oourt, D. Ma..aM'UIIsttl.
February 2, 1883.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTION!l-VALIDJTY OF REI88Ul>
A reissue' may be good, a8 .t6 some of its claims and bad as, to othera. A patentee may, rely on the infringement of the valid claim.
W. A. Macleod, for defendant. T. L. Wakefield, for complainants. LOWELL, J. A rehearing is asked for by the defendant, for tho reason that since the interlocutory decree was entered, (Oote v. Moffitt, 8 FED. REP. 152,) and since the accounting was begun' before the master, the decisions of the supreme court(Miller v. Bra" 00. 104 U. S. 350; Jame8 v. Campbell, Id. 356) haye laid down' a rule for ascertaining the 'validity of reissues which was not understood before, and one which: would render reissue in this case void. The plaintiffs deny that the reissue is void, and objeot that this petition should have been filed before theylla<} incurred sotnuch expense before the master. If I have a discretion in the matter, arisiJ?g out of the delity, I do not exercise it, because I think the case'of GouT,d 'v. Spicer '[reported ante] decides the point. It was there held that a reissue , might be good as to some of its claims, and bad to others; and that if a valid c,laitn in the origin'al patent in the reissue and was infringed, the patentee might rely upon that: infringement and prevail, though some other claims were too broad. The single olaim \ orCote's original patent is repeated, in su1)stanoe, in the telssue, and will support the plaintiff's 'decree. Petition denied.