woosrn v. HANDY. i53
plication for that patent." As to the Bobjohn patent, No. 6,566,the
decision considered the question of novelty, and sustained the patent. ·
Although the defense that the reissue was not for the same invention
as the original was set up and urged, and it was considered and over-
ruled, no special observations were made in the decision, in regard
to it. The remarks in regard to the Pipo reissue were considered
as applying to it.
Some progress was made in taking testimony on the accounting
before the master, when, on the ninth of January, 1882, the cases of
Miller v. Brass O0. 104 U. S. 350, and James v. Campbell, Id. 356,
were decided by the supreme court. The defendant thereupon pre-
sented to this court, on March 22, 1882, a petition, with notice of an ·
application to be made March 31, 1882, that the prayer of the peti-
tion be granted. The application was adjourned and not heard till _
June, 1884. The petition states that the said decisions in 104 U. S.
"fix and establish rules of law in respect to reissues, different from
those stated in numerous decisions of the circuit court of the United
States for the Second circuit in numerous earlier cases; that said
decisions of the supreme court are directly in point, as affecting the
validity of the said Pipo and Bohjohn reissues ; and that the said Pipo
reissue and the said Bobjohn reissue must be declared void in accord-
ance with the doctrines laid down in said cases." One of the prayers
of the petition is for a rehearing of the cause on the questions of law
involved, in view of the said decisions of the supreme court, and that
the interlocutory decree be opened.
The rehearing asked for is not such a rehearing as is the subject
of rule 88 of the equity rules prescribed by the supreme court. That
rehearing is one aftera final decree, after a decree which is of an ap-
pealable character. The present decree is not an appealable decree.
The rehearing asked for is a reconsideration of the law of the case on
the question of the validity of the reissues, in view of the decisions by
the supreme court referred to. The test applied by this court, as
announced by itin deciding the case, was that the reissues were to
be sustained as to their claims, inasmuch as there was nothing found
in them which was not found in the descriptions or drawings of the
original patents, or in the models accompanying the applications for
those patents.
. The principle, the application of which is invoked by the defend-
ants, is well settled. In Perkins v. Fournlquet, 6 How. 206, 209, it
is said, that interlocutory decreesremain under the control of the-
court and subject to its revision, until the master’s report comesin °
and is finally acted upon by the court, and the whole of the matters
in controversy are disposed of by a dual decree. ~ In Foumiguet v. Per. U
Islas, 16 How. 82, there were an interlocutory decree, an accounting
under it, a report of a master, exceptions tothe report, and an argu- ’
_ ment thereon. On the argument, the circuit court reconsidered the
opinion it had expressed on the merits in the interlocutory decree, and,