46 r FEDERAL REPORTER.
inal description limited the invention to that class of time-keepers in
which a fixed annular rack or internally toothed wheel is employed
to aid a spring barrel in rotating the train of wheels, and that this
construction only was shown in the model, and that the importance
of the Lane invention consisted in the abandonment of the "p1anet
wheel" and the substitution therefor of the ordinary mainspring.
If the premise was true, they deny the conclusion, because it is a
fact, the truth of which is apparent, that in the original speciucation
and drawings the patentee gave no hint that he regarded the construc-
tion described in any one of the first eight claims as forming any ma·
terial or immaterial part of his invention.
Waiving the question whether the patentee, if he could reissue at
all, was not confined to the peculiar class of clocks which he had de-
scribed in his original specification, he having given no suggestion or
indication that any other sub-combination than those which he had
named would be of value or would perform an oiiice of its own, and
conceding that if the subjectof the first eight claims could be intro-
duced into a reissue they could also include a clock not having the
driving gear of the model, I proceed to consider the question whether
the invention described in these claims, being an invention of which
no trace _is to be found in the original specification, and being mani-
festly other and different from that which was the subject of the
original patent, is an invention which can be included in the reissue.
The plaintiffs plant themselves upon the well-known phraseology
which has been used both by the supreme court and by its individual
members, that a reissue (if seasonably applied for) can include what
was shown, substantially suggested, or indicated in the original spec-
ification, drawings, or model, and say that the real invention of Hotch-
kiss existed, and therefore was shown in the model, and therefore a re-
issue can take it in. I do not think that prior to the definition of
new matter in Powder Oo. v. Powder, Works, 9E   S. 126, such a reis-
sue as this is would have found favor in the eyes of a court, for the-
eight claims which are in controversy are a total abandonment of the
principles which are stated in the original patent to be those of the
invention, and are an introduction into the reissue of a subject-matter
which has no relation to the original patent, except that each patent
relates to clocks. But, since the decision to which I have referred,
taken in connection with other later decisions which throw light on
the subject, the question is one which seems to me to be settled.
In Powder Oo. v. Powder Works the court say:
*‘ The legislature was willing to concede to the patentee the right to amend
his specification so as fully to describe and claim the very invention attempted
to be secured by his original patent, and which was not fully, secured thereby
in consequence of inadvertence, accident. or mistake; but was not willing to-
give him the right to patch up his patent bythe addition of other inventions,
which, though they might be his, had not been applied for by him, or, if ap-
plied for, had been abandoned or waived." _ V