1063  ;  Dederick  v.  Cassell,  9  Md.  Bep'r,  306  ;  27  Int.  Rev.  Bee.
400  ;  20  Pat.  Off.  Gaz.  1263.  Where  it  appears,  as  matter  of  law,
on  a  comparison  of  the  two  instruments,  that  a  reissued  patent  is
not  for  the  same  invention  as  that  embraced  and  secured  in  the
original  patent,  the  reissued  patent  is  invalid.  Sickles  v.  Evans,  2
Cliff:  203  ;  2  Fish.  Pat.  Gas.  417  ;  Tucker  v.  Tucker  Mauuf.  Co.,
IQ  Pat.  Off.  6ra2.  464;  1  JBann.<&  A.Pat.  Cas.2Q\.  If  a  patent,  con-
taining a  single  claim  for  a  combination,  is  reissued,  with  the  same
description  as  before,  but  with  two  claims,  the  one  a  repetition  of
the  original  claim,  and  the  other  for  a  combination  of  some  of  the
elements  only,  the  reissue  is  valid  as  to  the  repetition  of  the  original
claim  but  invalid  as  to  the  new  claim  ;  to  uphold  the  latter  would
be  to  enlarge  the  claim,  which  must  not  be  done  by  reissue.  Gage
V.  Herring,  107  U.  S.  640;  2  Sup.  Ct.  Rep'r,  819.  Compare
McMurray  v.  Mallory,  111  U.  S.  91  ;  Washburn,  «fec.,  Manuf.  Co.
V.  Fuchs,  16  Fed.  Bep'r,  661  ;  Terrell  v.  Bradford,  15  Fed.  Bep'r,
808  ;  23  Pat.   Off.  Gaz.  1623.
145.  Illustrations.
A  patent  for  a  machine  cannot  be  broadened  on  reissue  to  cover
a  process  described  in  the  original  patent  ;  if  the  process  were
patentable  it  should  have  been  included  in  the  original  patent.
