New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-11-05
Act OF Congress makes no provision for second

Act OF Congress makes no provision for a second
surrender and reissue.
The 18Th section Of he act of 1896, which provides
IN certain cases f0r ne surrender OF detective
patent, and its reissue amended form, regards
The new patent substituted for the old one, with
Just the same effect and operations ID aw" as IL
the specification had been filed at first in the form
which It takes in the reissue II is difficult 10 see
why, II the original patent could be amended its
substitute, having all the Legal attributes OF the
original cannot be amended also
3. We pass to the third objection, the supposed
variance in the reissues
It not the meaning of the law that the pa,entee
who applies for a reissue must at his peril describe
and claim in his new specification. either IN words
or ldea lust what was described and claimed IN MS
old one His new specification must be OF the same
invention, and his claim cannot embrace dferens
subject matter from that which he sought tn patent
originally. But, unless narrow down the correc-
ton which the statute contempt ftes, TIL 1t becomes
mere disclaimer, it Is not possible IN any case 70
frame a corrected specification which snail mol De
broader than the one originally MED. To supply
defect to repair an insuihciency Is TO add-either
directly or by modifying or striking out limitation
in either form, the effect is to amphfy the PROPOSE
tion-n the case of specification under the patent
laws il is 10 ampliy the descr ptlOn and enlarge the
claim.
After a repeated and careful examination OF the
three specifications, with their respective claims,
fully aided By the Of highly ingenious coun-
sell the Court has not found any material difference
OF import between them.
Mr Morse's patent of 1910. IN all its changes. as
seTts his title 10 two distinct patentao!e suoecIs
the first founded on the discovery Of new art the
second on the invention Of the means OF practising
That he was the first to devise and practice the art
Of recording language at Geographic distances, oy
the DYNAMIC force OF the electro magnet or, ndeed
by any agency whatever is, to our minds, PLAN upon
MIR. Morse's patent Of 1916, as reissued IN 1913,
blaims the local or independent circuit IN these
words:
1.-The employment in a certain telegraphlc CIR
cult Of a Gevice cOntflvance called the RecelV-
ing Magnet III combination with short local lnde-
pendent circuit or circuits, each having a register
and registering magnet, or other magnetic contrlT-
auces fer registering, and sustaining such relation
70 the registering magnet or other contrvances ior
reglsteTng. ana to the length of circuit OF tele-
graphic Inc a. will enable me 10 obtain, WIN the
and of main gayanic battery and circuit, and the IN
teUentlOn OF local battery and circuit, such mo-
ton or power for registering could not be OBTAIN
ed otherwise without the use OF a much larger gal
VaLic battery, II at all.
hey ord controversy that the Local Circuit Pa
tent has been mnngcd upon AZ some o; the stations
OF the respondents ne and II IS the opinion OF the
Court, that II also violated whenever the Branch
Circuit OF Mr.. Rogers IS employed. We have not
been able to asserted the difference IN principle
between the two devices. Both are equally well
described as Branch or as Local Circuits, Ihey
have the same purpose they effect 1t by the same
fundamentally, even in appearance to great de-
gree and they seem to vary only IN this tina. the
one derives It's electric fluid from battery placed
within line OF the main circuit the other IRON
battery placed without II. The change may De
for the better 1t may not If 1t be, II IS patent
able as Improvement. but 1t cannot be usei
without Mr. MOrse's license, until after his patent
has expired.
The third patent is for the Chemical Telegraph.
The subject of It clearly within the original pat.
ent Of Mr. Morse, # we have correctly apprehended
the LEGAL Interpretation and effect OF that lDstru-
meut We wifi only say that we do not hold 1t to
have been nyalidaed by the decision of the learned
Chief Justice of the District Of Columbia on the
question of interference. The form U the two ma
chimes before were not the same and the leading
principle of both having been already appropriated
and secured by the Magnetic Telegraph patent Of
1870 nothing remained but form to be the subject OF
interference.