GIANT POWDBB CO. ». CAL. VIGORIT POWDEB 00. 721 �3. Same— Same — Same. — The commissioner of patents, however, is an �officer of liraited authority, whose jurisdiction is restricted to the p;irticular cases mentioned in the statute, and, therefore, whenever it is appaient upon inspection of the patents that he has acted without authority, or has exceeded it, his judgment must necessarily be re- garded as invalid. �4. Bamb— Same— Samb.— ^«îôî, therefore, where an original patent cov- �ered a compound of nitro-glycerine with inexplosive, porous, absorb- ent substances, and the re-issued patent covered a compound of nitro-glycerine "with ail porous absorbents, whether explosive or in- explosive, that there was no case presented upon which the powers of the commissioner of patents could be invoked, and that the re- issue was therefore void. Sussell V. Dodge, 93 U. B. 463, �5. Patent— Tehms — G!okstruotion. — Although the court cannot look �outside of a patent for the explanation of terms in it which are not techaical and are free f rom ambiguity, yet it can examine into the his- tory of the invention patented so as to be able to read the specifica- tions in the light of the inventor's knowledge. �6. Bamb— Samb — Same. — Edd, therefore, in view of the history of this �case, and reading the specifications of the patent in that light, that it is clear that the inventor used the term " inexplosive " in its natural and ordinary sense, and that the attempt to limit that meaning is art afterthought of the assignees, desiring to bring within the reach of the patent compounds in no respect within the inventor's contemplation. �MeAllister £ Bergin, Alfred Rix, and Caustcn Browne, for complainant. �Hammond <& Wright, for defendants. �FiELD, G. J. The complainant is the holder of a patent bearing date March 17, 1874, for an alleged new explosive compound known as dynamite or giant powder. For some time since its issue the defendants have been engaged in mak- ing, selling, and using an explosive compound averred to be Bubstantially the same as the compound described in the pat- ent. This suit is brought for the alleged infringement, with a prayer that the defendants be required to account and pay over to the complainant the income and profits obtained by them from this violation of its rights, and be restrained from further infringement. The compound patented is claimed to be the invention of Alfred Noble, a distinguished engineer of Sweden. His invention, whatever may have been its extent, was assigned to one Bandmann, in April, 1868, and in May �v.4,no.8 — 46 ����
