COLLINS COMPANY v. coms. ‘ 39
against the step E. The reissue alfirms and repeats that the distin-
guishing characteristic of the invention is that the step can be read-
ily removed and replaced at pleasure. There is no hint of such a
distinction in the original patent.
The first claim in the original patent is for "the step E, made sub-
stantially as described, and for the purpose set forth." The corre-
sponding claim in the reissue is for "the step, combined with the
wrench-bar, and supported by the nut F, or its equivalent, at the place
where the step is connected with the bar, in such manner that the
step can be removed from the bar without cutting or abrasion of
parts. "
The parallel screw-rod, with a rosette thereon to work the movable
jaw, and resting upon a ferrule or step, had been introduced in the
original Goes wrench, patented in 1841; and, long before the issue of ·
the patent to Jordan and Smith in 1865, large numbers of the Hew-
itt or Dixie wrench had been made and sold, in which there was no
separate screw-rod, and the screw that worked the movable jaw re-
volved on the main bar, but that screw rested on a ferrule or step,
which was secured sometimes by driving it on under heavy pressure,
and sometimes by a nut screwed under it on the bar. ~
The application to the bar of the Goes wrench, for the purpose of
securing and supporting the step and resisting the strain, of a nut
already in use for the same purpose on the Hewitt or Dixie wrench,
lacks the novelty of invention requisite to support a patent, within
the decisions of the supreme court at the last term, which have, in
effect, overruled the earlier decision of this court in the suit of this
complainant against Loring Goes and others, reported in_ 5 Ban. &
A. 548. Pennsylvania R. R. v. Locomotive Engine Safety Truck
__ Oo. 110 U. S. 490; S. G. 4 Sup. Gt. Rep. 220; Bnssey v. Excelsior
Mannfg Co. 110 U. 131; S. G. 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 38; Double-pointed
Tack C0. v. Two Rivers Man-ufg Oo. 10-9 U. S..117; S. G. 3 Sup.
Ct. Rep. 105; Phillips v. Detroit, 111 U. S. 604; S. C. 4 Sup. Ot.
Rep. 580.
The complainants patent being void for want of novelty, it be-
comes unnecessary to consider the other defenses.
Bill dismissed, with costs.