314r FEDERAL REPORTBR. �ties, in combination with the bale-chamber," etc. ; and "(11) The fol- lower 0, as a partition or separation between the finished and form- ing baie." �Whatever the plaintiff may have intended by the term "movable partition," as employed in the claims now under consideration, it must be held to refer to the "follower 0, " the only movable partition contemplated in the original application for a patent. The attempt to found four additional claims on this device, as here exhibited, is censurable. If the purpose was to vary the character of the device, it was an effort to expand the scope of the invention. If not this, it is a senseless, confusing, and therefore mischievous, multiplication of claims for the same aubject-matter. Construing the term "movable partition" to mean the "follower 0," everything embraced in these claims is fully covered by the sixth and eleventh, just referred to, Eeading the latter in connection with the specifications and drawings (as we must,) they include every element and combination here embraced. The "process," as it is called, in the eighth, is simply the operation and effeet of the plaintiff 's press, with the "follower 0" used in the manner set forth in the specifications, The claims are disallowed. �Of reissue 8,292, the claims involved read as follows: �"(2) In that class of horizontal presses in which the hay is fed and pressed in sections by a reciprocating traverser and crank, or toggle power, as set forth, the loose or adjiistahle sweep or horse-lever, for the purpose set forth." "(5) In that class of baling-presses in which the hay is fed and pressed in sections, a press-case provided with a screerv-bottom under the reciprocating traverser D, and in combination with the same, for the purpose set forth. (6) In a baling- press in which the material is compressed in sections by a reciprocating trav- erser, the pressing devices so arranged and operated that the reaction or elastic- ity of the pressed material shall reverse the traverser without turning the horse-lever or sweep." �Here, again, two of the claims — the second and sixth — embrace the same matter. Each is substantially for an arrangement of the power and pressing devices (such as is described in the specifications and shown in the model and drawings,) to prevent the reaction or rebound of the pressed material throwing the lever against the horses. The matter embraced is new and patentable, but the double claim cannot be allowed. While it may be a matter of indifference whether the one or the other be rejected, we will reject the second and allow the sixth. In the fifth the only element demanding consideration is "the screen-bottom" under the reciprocating traverser. The claim is not to the screen (and could not be, for this is a very old device,) but is ��� �
