2!)0 PET)KBAL REPORTER. �applied for a reissue, in which he states his invention as before, but enlarges very greatly its scope : �" The subject of my invention is a horizontal brick machine, constructed ■with a tub supported at its ends in suitable standards, and with a nose-piece or die-holder projecting forward from one of the standards, and adapted for the attachaient of suitable dies, which are formed to deliver the clay in one or more horizontal columns on the edge instead of flatwise, as heretofore; the advantages of running the clay on edge being that they are lesa liable to dis- tortion, and in better shape for cutting into bricks. My invention further consista of a brick machine having a horizontal shaft provided with a collar in rear of one of its bearings to confine the shaft against forward movement when the machine is running empty." �Four additional claims are made, none of which have any relation to the claims made in the original patent. Now, if it be true that the patentee may claim in his reissue anything which was suggested in the drawings of the original patent, this reissue is valid ; but if he is eonfined to what he declares is his invention in his original pat- ent, then it is invalid. There is nothing here tending to show that his original patent was inoperative or invalid by reason of a defective or insuf&cient specification. On the contrary, his specifications are full and complete, and his claims appear to cover everything which he set forth as his own invention. There is no attempt to amend the claims contained in the first patent. There is not even an attempt to enlarge the scope of these claims, but there are four new and distinct claims made to parts of the machine, to which no refer- ence is made in the original patent as his invention. Indeed, a com- parison of the two specifications precludes the idea of inadvertence, accident, or mistake, sinee all but two of the claims of the original patent are reproduced in the reissue ; and there is no pretence that this patent was inoperative or invalid as to anything therein claimed to be the patentee's invention. It appears to be a case where the patentee bas materially enlarged the scope of his patent for the pur- pose of reaching thbse who are constructing machines after the same general design as his own. Upon the best consideration I have been able to give to this matter, I have corne to the conclusion that this reissue cannot be supported, and that as to these four claims it is void. �Proceeding now to the second patent in this suit, reissue No. 8,127, dated March 19, 1878, the original of which was issued May 23, 1876, an objection is taken to the first claim upon the ground that this claim was made in the original patent and rejected; that the patentee acquiesced in this rejection, and therefore cannot make the same ��� �
