\
48 . rmnsnui anpoarmn. `
Campbell, Id. 356; Clements v. Odcrless Excavating O0. 109 U. S.
641; S. C. 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 525.
With respect to the Stewart patent, the reissue having been applied
for only nine months after the granting of the original, the complain-
ant contends that so far as the objection of unreasonable delay, and
subsequently acquired rights in others, is concerned, it is free from
any of the vices which the supreme court has held fatal to reissued
patents.` A
· The purpose of the devices described in the Hrst claim of the Stew-
art patent is to prevent dirt and dust from getting access to the jour-
nals and boxes of car-axles, and this the patentee claimed to have ac-
complished by a novel form of box and car·wheel. Upon the side of
the axle-box next to the wheel he formed a cylindrical projection, B,
having an annular outwardly. projecting flange, a, upon its end.
Upon the car-wheel, on the side next to the axle-box, he formed a
tubular projection, c, having an inwardly projecting flange, b, upon
its end, The cylindrical projection on the box fits into the tubular
projection on the wheel, and they are slipped one into the other, and
the annular space left between the cylinder and the tube is obstructed
by the outwardly and inwardly projecting flanges. Of this arrange-
ment the patentee, in his specifications, says: "lt will be seen that
dust would have to pass around a very circuitous route before it could U
penetrate far enough to reach the bearings of the journal."
As part of the improvement described in his specifications, and
claimed in the second claim, Stewart constructed crescent-shaped
saddles for the bearings, in a peculiar manner, which required the out-
side of the tubular projection on the box to be made of an elliptical
or oblong shape. His first claim in the original patent is for-
"(1) The combination of the tubes, B and C, with flanges, a and b, arranged
upon the box and wheel, substantially as shown."
In the Stewart reissue patent the drawings and specifications are
identical with the original, but the first claim is as follows:
"(1) The combination and arrangement of the oblong tube, B, on the box,
and the tube, C, on the wheel, with or without the flanges, a and b, substan-
tially as described. "
It thus appears that the original claim was for the combination of
_ the two tubes, (as the cylinder and tube may be called,) with flanges
upon their ends, and the reissue seeks to cover the combination sim-
ply of the two tubes without the flanges.
The question of infringement by the respondent company is a very
simple one. The wheels and boxes made by the Bemis Car-box Corn-
pany, and bought and used by the respondent, have the two tubes
without the flanges, and neither of them is "oblong." They do not
infringe the first claim of the original patent, but they do infringe the
first claim of the reissued patent, if it is valid, and if the "oblong"
feature of it is immaterial. _