Samuel Blatchford

“ The plaintiff insists that these claims should not receive such a construction, because it has been found that the invention of the specification of the reissue, although a broader one than was described in the original patent, is the invention which the history of the art and the patent show should have been described, and because the first reissue was promptly applied for, and, as issued, included in its second claim, in the view of the plaintiff, the same invention which is described in the first and second claims of the reissue. ”

“ On the 8th of May, 1872, the patent office examiner called the attention of the applicant to the fact that the following matters in the new specification were not warranted by the original patent, namely: the words 'or screws,' in the part marked '1;' the words 'may be,' in the parts marked '2' and '6;' the parts marked '3,' '4,' and '7;' and the third claim, being the part marked '8.' On the 9th of May, 1872, the applicant appealed to the commissioner of patents in person, because the examiner had refused to examine the case on its merits, in view of the introduction of such new matter ”

“ Our conclusion makes it unnecessary to consider the defense raised in the answer, and urged in argument, that the post-office boxes used by the defendant were used by him as postmaster of the United States at the city of New York; that the boxes were the property of the United States and were rented by it to sundry persons; that the rent was a part of the postal revenue of the United States, and was not a source of personale molument to the defendant; that it was not within the power of the defendant to remove or alter the boxes ”