IALB LOCK MANOf'g CO. V. NOBWICH NAT, BANK. 397 �might have a valid patent therefor." These facts exclude the third claim from the decision or the dicta in the case of Leggett v. Avery, 101 U. S. 266. �I do not understand that the objection that the re-issue is for a different invention from the original was pressed by either of the counsel for the defendant. Xt is sufScient to say that the claims of the original were for the combination of the third claim, provided with a device wbereby the boit ■work may be retained in the unlocked position for shutting the door, and be automatically locked by the time lock p,nd meehanically, by the key lock when the boit wgrk is cast. The patentee had shown "means whereby ; " but, if I have been correct thus far, the gist of hia invention consisted not /'n that device, but in the triple c'ombination. Other different "devices whereby" could bo introduced by other inventoi-s, ■which would destfoy the value of his patent if ii Wias «nduly lim- ited. As said by the board Oi^ ekaininers : " * Means wherehy,' ■rtrhile being esseniiial to the cionvenient uise of this combina- tion, is merely incidental to the main idea, and inay be varied indeflnitely without departihg from the' spirit and scope of the applicant 's invention." �Let there be a decree in the Norwich Bank case ifbr an injunction against infriiigement bf H;he- first and seventh claims of the Little re-issue, and of the third claim 6f the Sargent re-issue, and foi an accountiig; 'andlet there be a decree in the NeWHaven Savings Bank case for an injunction against infrineement of the fira't and seventh claims of the Little re-issue, and for ail accouhting. ��� �
