l 42 FEDERAL REPORTER.
per, provided with overlapping folds or flaps, and a cylindrical ship-
ping-case ; the fourth is similar to the third, except that the cylin-
drical shipping-case is not mentioned; and the fifth refers to the
manner of forming the package by placing the wrapper in the recess
of the block, filling it with sticks of candy and closing it in the man-
ner described. The sixth claim, though substantially like the nfth, is
not in controversy here and need not be particularly mentioned.
The material difference between the original and the reissue, when
we separate each into its several parts and look to the substance of
both, is, that whereas inthe original the patentee did not necessarily
include, as a part of the subject-matter of his patent, the connection
of a cylindrical vessel with the packages, in the reissue, that seems to
be indispensable to some of the claims.
· The first, second, third, and fourth claims in the reissue speak of
the form of the package as being wedge·shapedor prismatic, without
regard to the manner in which the package has been brought to or
assumed that particular shape; and if it be true that the wrapper or
envelope as described is not a part of theserespective claims, then it
‘ seems clear that they are invalid, because we may imagine any one
could make up a package in that form by mere manipulation, and
therefore it would seem the only ground upon which they can be sus-
. tained is by their construction and formation in the mode described,
through the angular recess in the block; and if this view of the claims ‘
in the reissue is correct, then all that would remain asthe subject of
controversy would be the fifth claim. But can this be considered the
true construction of the patent and of the claims? It seems that the
object of the patentee was to draw within the terms of his patent-
First, a packet, however made, provided it contained candy-sticks,
and was of the form described, and inclosed within a wrapper sulfi-
ciently-stiff to hold the sticks together, assuming that the form of the
package was neat and compact in outline; and, secondly, a package
like the one just described, provided it was made by means of the
angular recess. Now this can hardly be said to be a correct view
of the patent as contained in the specifications and in the claims, be-
cause it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that in all the
claims the wrapper, folded substantially as described, is an essential
element, notwithstanding the general disclaimer which is contained.
outside of the claims in the body of the specifications; for the first,
second, and fourth claims refer to the wrapper as folded substantially
as described; and the third claim speaks of thewrapper as being pro-
vided with overlapping folds or flaps toguard the base and sides of
the packet; and the fifth claim speaks of closing the wrapper upon
the candy-sticks, substantially as described; so that, in all the claims
in controversyihere, the wrapper, as described in the body of the
specifications, seems to be essential; sothat if it were admitted that
the forming a package in the manner described, containing sticks of
candy inclosed in a wrapper in any suitable manner to make it neat