A claim will not be enlarged by construction beyond the fair interpretation of its terms. Burns v. Meyer, 100 U. S. 671; Delaware C. & I. Co. v. Packer, 24 O. G. 1273.

The intention of the inventor, so as to effect the object designed, is to govern the construction of the language he employs. Inventors are not always educated or scientific men. Some most useful inventions have sprung from an illiterate source. Genius is not always blessed with the power of language. Courts look to the manifest design in order to remove any ambiguity arising from the terms employed; but this ambiguity must not be such as would perplex an ordinary mechanic in the art to which it applies. Page v. Ferry, 1 Fish. 298.

There may be a liberality of construction very injurious to the public, especially if it permits a patentee to couch his specification in such ambiguous terms that its claims may be contracted or expanded to suit the exigency. Parker v. Sears, 1 Fish. 93.

The same exact rule of interpretation is not to be applied at all times, but such in each case as will best enable the court to arrive at the meaning intended. Welling v. Rubber Co., 7 O. G. 606; s. c. 1 Ban & Ard. 282..

It is not necessary to classify a claim and to draw deductions from such classification. That is generally an unsafe mode of reasoning. Howev. Morton, 1 Fish. 586.

If two inventors were prosecuting experiments at the same time, and each obtained a patent, the subsequent patent should be so construed as to sustain it, if possible, if the principle upon which it operates is different from that of the prior patent. Moore v. Ludlow, 14 O. G. 1.

What may be Referred to.

It is the duty of the patentee to sum up his invention in clear and determinate terms, and his summing up is conclusive upon his right and title. Wyeth v. Stone, 1 Story 274; s. c. 2 Robb 23; Dennis v. Cross, 3 Biss. 389; s. c. 6 Fish. 138; Hovey v. Stevens, 3 W. & M. 17; s. c. 2 Robb 567; Wheeler v. McCormick, 6 Fish. 551; s. c. 11 Blatch. 334; 4 O. G. 692.

The patentee is restricted to his claim. It is true that the whole patent, including the specifications and the drawings, is to be taken into consideration, but the court looks at them only for the purpose of placing a proper construction on the claim. Pitts v. Wemple, 2 Fish. 10; s. c. 1 Biss. 87; Johnson v. McCullough, 4 Fish. 170; Brooks v. Fisk, 15 How. 212; Rich v. Close, 4 Fish. 279; s. c. 8 Blatch. 41; Railroad Co. v. Mellon, 104 U. S. 112; s. c. 20 O. G. 1891.

The claim is the attempt on the part of the inventor to describe the very thing which he supposes he has invented, and for which he asks the patent. Many v. Jagger. 1 Blatch. 372.

The claim must be construed as favorably to the patentee as the language of the claim, the state of the art and the extent and character of his actual invention will allow. Burden v. Corning, 2 Fish. 477.

The claim contained in a patent is to be construed with reference to the state of the art at the time of the invention. Pitts v. Wemple, 2 Fish, 10; s. c. 1 Biss. 87; Tilghman v. Mitchell, 2 Fish. 518; Goodyear v. Wait, 3 Fish. 242; s. c. 5 Blatch. 468; Whipple v. Middlesex Co., 4 Fish. 41; Goodyear Dental Co. v. Gardner, 4 Fish. 224; s. c. 2 Cliff. 408; Rogers v. Sargent, 7 Blatch. 507; Loom Co. v. Higgins, 16 O. G. 675; s. c. € 15 Blatch. 486; s. c. 4 Ban & Ard. 88, 105 U. S. 580; s. c. 21 O. G. 2031; American Whip Co. v. Hayden Whip Co., 5 Ban & Ard. 125; s. c. 1 Fed. Rep. 87; Garneau v. Dozier, 102 U. S. 230; s. c. 19 O. G. 61; Bate Refrigerator Co. v. Toffey, 6 Fed. Rep. 514; Jones v. Barker, 22 O. G. 771; s. c. 11 Fed. Rep. 597.

The extent of an invention must be ascertained by comparing what the inventor produces with what was known before the time of the invention and not the time of the application for a patent. Sprague v. Adriance, 14 O. G. 308; s. c. 3 Ban & Ard. 124.

In construing a patent the courts, in the first place, generally look to the claim, which by law is required to be a summing up of the particulars of the invention for which the applicant desires a patent. If that claim is vague and uncertain, then reference is made to the specification and drawings, together with such other exhibits as may aid in giving a construction to the patent. Haselden v. Ogden, 3 Fish. 378; Whipple v. Baldwin Manuf. Co., 4 Fish. 29; Whipple v. Middlesex Co., 4 Fish. 41; Johnson v. Root, 1 Fish. 351.

In order to determine what the patentee claims as his invention the court must look to the specification annexed to the patent, which is made by law a portion of the patent. In determining the construction of the claim it is proper that the court should refer to the whole specification and consider the whole of it in connection. New York v. Ransom, 23 How. 487; s. c. 1 Fish. 252; Carter v. Messinger, 11 Blatch. 34; Hovey v. Stevens, 1 W. & M. 290 ; s. c. 2 Robb 479; Hudson v. Draper, 4 Fish. 256; s. c. 4 Cliff. 176; 10. G. 204; Page v. Ferry, 1 Fish. 298; Roberts v. Dickey, 4 Fish. 532; s. c. 4 Brews. 260; s. c. 10. G. 4; Judson v. Cope, 1 Fish. 615; s. c. 1 Bond 327; Howe v. Morton, 1 Fish. 586; Rogers v. Sargent, 7 Blatch. 507; Vance v. Campbell, 1 Fish. 483; s. c. 1 Black 427; Davoll v. Brown, 1 W. & M. 53; s. c. 2 Robb 303; Carver v. Braintree Manuf. Co., 2 Story 432; s. c. 2 Robb 141; Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516; s. c. 3 Fish. 555; Seymour v. McCormick, 19 How. 96; s. c. 3 Blatch. 209; Coffin v. Ogden, 3 Fish. 640; s. c. 7 Blatch. 61; Francis v. Mellor, 5 Fish. 153; s. c. 8 Phila. 157; 1 O. G. 48; 5 A. L. T. 237; Suffolk Co. v. Hayden, 4 Fish. 86; s. c. 3 Wall. 315; Holly v. Vergennes Machine Co., 18 Blatch. 327; s. c. 18 O. G. 1177; s. c. 4 Fed. Rep. 74; Nat'l Car B. S. Co. v. L. S. & M. S. R. R. Co., 9 Biss. 505; s. c. 18 O. G. 1173; s. c. 4 Fed. Rep. 219.

The patent, the specification and the drawings may be referred to in ascertaining the extent of the patentee's claim. While it is true that the court is to look at the summing up to discover what parts of the machine he claims to have invented, still, if anything is needed to enable it to

determine the proper meaning of the expressions used in the claim, it must refer to the previous portion of the specification for such explanations as may be necessary to understand the office and purpose of that which is claimed as new. Forbes v. Barstow Stove Co., 2 Cliff. 379; Morris v. Barrett, 1 Fish. 461; s. c. 1 Bond 254; Ingels v. Mast, 1 Flippin 424; s. c. 2 Ban & Ard. 24; Judson v. Moore, 1 Fish. 544; s. c. 1 Bond 285; Turrill v. Railroad Company, 1 Wall. 491; Washburn v. Gould, 3 Story 122; s. c. 2 Robb 206; Pitts v. Edmonds, 2 Fish. 52; s. c. 1 Biss. 168; Union Sugar Refinery v. Mathiessen, 3 Cliff. 639; s. c. 2 Fish. 600; Birdsall v. McDonald, 6 O. G. 682; s. c. 1 Ban & Ard. 165; Geir v. Goettinger, 7 O. G. 563; s. c. 1 Ban & Ard. 553; Earle v. Sawyer, 4 Mason 1; s. c. 1 Robb 491; Whitney v. Emmett, Bald. 303; s. c. 1 Robb 567; Kittle v. Merriam, 2 Curt. 475; Goodyear Dental Co. v. Gardner, 3 Cliff. 408; s. c. 4 Fish. 224; Doughty v. Day, 5 Fish. 224; s. c. 9 Blatch. 262.

A petition is always required to be presented by an inventor. The specification is required to be prepared and filed before the patent.issues. The specification is incorporated expressly and at length into the letters patent themselves, and must be regarded as a component part by the statute. Hogg v. Emerson, 6 How. 437; s. c. 2 Blatch. 1; s. c. 2 Robb 655.

The specification and the claim emanate from the same pen-the one cannot contradict the other. Page v. Ferry, 1 Fish. 298.

If the claim and specification do not altogether agree, the claim governs the patent. Haselden v. Ogden, 3 Fish. 378.

The different parts of the patent must be compared with each other, and the instrument considered as a whole. Union Sugar Refinery v. Mathiessen, 2 Fish. 600.

The drawings are to be deemed a part of the specification, and may be referred to for the purpose of adding anything to the specification or claim not specifically contained therein. Washburn v. Gould, 3 Story 122; s. c. 2 Robb 206; Banker v. Bostwick, 18 O. G. 61; s. c. 3 Fed. Rep. 517. The specification governs, and the drawings merely illustrate. Hogg v. Emerson, 11 How. 587; s. c. 2 Blatch. 1; Hamilton v. Ives, 6 Fish. 244; s. c. 3 O. G. 30.

If the claim refers to other parts of the specification and drawings, those parts are to be examined in connection with it, in order to ascertain what is claimed in the summary as the new improvement. Hovey v. Stevens, 3 W. & M. 17; s. c. 2 Robb 567; Heinrich v. Luther, 6 McLean 345.

Mere matters of adjustment of the individual elements of a combination are not limited or controlled by the drawings, unless: 1. They are expressly so limited by the specifications as well; or, 2. Such limitation and control are necessary to maintain the integrity of the specifications taken as a whole, or of some essential part or parts thereof; or, 3. Such limitation and control are essential to produce the result claimed. Hamilton v. Ives, 6 Fish. 244; s. c. 3 (). G. 30.

Although the drawings may be referred to in construing the patent, yet they can not supply an omission in a specification or claim. Tinker v. W. E. M. & R. Manuf. Co., 5 Ban & Ard. 92; s. c. 1 Fed. Rep. 138.

The courts will look at the model, which is as much a part of the patent as the specification, and which the statute requires to be preserved, in order to illustrate anything that may be doubtful to the mechanic who undertakes to make the machine from the patent after the patent has expired. Hoffheins v. Brandt, 3 Fish. 218; Goodyear Dental Co. v. Gardner, 3 Cliff. 408; s. c. 4 Fish. 224.

Where the construction of the patent and specification as to the subject of the grant is doubtful, the affidavit, if more precise, may be resorted to in order to explain the ambiguity. Pettibone v. Derringer, 4 Wash. C. C. 215; s. c. 1 Robb 152.

In construing a reissue the specifications in both the original and reissue will be examined. Forsyth v. Clapp, 6 Fish. 528; s. c. 1 Holmes 278; s. c. 4 O. G. 527; Atlantic Giant Powder Co. v. Mowbray, 12 O. G. 560; s. c. 2 Ban & Ard. 442; Swain P. Manuf. Co. v. Ladd, 102 U. S. 409; s. c. 19 O. G. 62; s. c. 11 O. G. 153; s. c. 2 Ban & Ard. 488.

The patent must be construed without reference to the previous correspondence and previously rejected applications, especially if the patent issued correctly describes the invention. Piper v. Brown, 4 Fish. 175; Johnson v. Root, 1 Fish. 351; Goodyear Dental Co. v. Gardner, 3 Cliff. 408; s. c. 4 Fish. 224.

The construction of a patent must certainly depend on the words of the instrument, but, where the words are ambiguous, there may be circumstances which ought to have great influence in expounding them. The intention of the parties, if that intention can be collected from sources which the principles of the law permit courts to explore, are entitled to great consideration. The parties are the Government, acting by its agents, and the patentee. Evans v. Eaton, 3 Wheat. 454; s. c. Pet. C. C.

322; s. c. 1 Robb 68, 243.

Whether the specification is for a principle or not is to be decided in view of the art, the character of the machine, the entire specifications, drawings and claims. Few cases constitute precedents for others. Because some tribunals in a particular case decided that certain words, when used in connection with their accompanying incidents, did import a claim for a result or principle, another tribunal should not treat these decisions as setting up a formula in all circumstances involving a similar meaning. They assert no such rule. All go upon a full critical review of the accompanying facts in reference to which they have been used, excluding the idea that other courts are not to perform the same duty. Words identical should be rendered as diversely as the conditions in which they are employed demand, in order not to defeat the fairly presumed intention of those who use them. Union Paper Bag Co. v. Nixon, 6 Fish. 402; s. c. 9 O. G. 691 ; s. c. 4 O. G. 31 ; s. c. 2 Ban & Ard. 244.

Whether the thing claimed to have been invented is sufficiently described in the patent is in its nature a question of law, for it depends upon the construction of a written instrument. If technical terms are used pecu

liar to mechanics in describing the invention, evidence may be heard in explanation of those terms, and in such case a jury may be necessary. Unless the thing claimed to be invented is so described as to be known from every other thing, the patent is void, and this must be determined by the court. Brooks v. Jenkins, 3 McLean 432; Davis v. Palmer, 2 Brock. 298; s. c. 1 Robb 518; Washburn v. Gould, 3 Story 122; s. c. 2 Robb 206; Davoll v. Brown, 1 W. & M. 53; s. c. 2 Robb 303.

The construction seldom rests on facts to be proved by parol, unless they are so referred to as to make a part of the description and to govern it; and when it does at all depend upon them, and they are proved or admitted, and are without dispute, it is the duty of the court on these facts to give the legal construction to the instrument. Davoll v. Brown, 1 W. & M. 53; s. c. 2 Robb 303.

The description of the operation and effect of each separate element of a combination must be read and construed with reference to the entire combination and its results, and the effect which the operation of each element has upon that of each of the others. Hamilton v. Ives, 6 Fish. 244; s. c. 3 O. G. 30.

The description or title of the invention ought not to be repugnant to the specification, but provided it honestly sets forth, in few words, the "nature and design" of the patent, it is sufficient. The specification must be looked to for the full disclosure of the discovery, and the extent of the inventor's claims. While the specification is usually, and always ought to be, drawn with the assistance of learned and able counsel, the short description or title in the patent is usually suggested by the commissioner of patents. The extent of the patentee's rights must be judged from the whole instrument taken together, and not from any one sentence. Sickles v. Gloucester Manuf'g Co., 1 Fish. 222; s. c. 3 Wall. Jr. 186; Goodyear v. Central R. R. Co., 1 Fish. 626; s. c. 2 Wall. Jr. 356; Hogg v. Emerson, 6 How. 437; s. c. 11 How. 587; 2 Blatch. 1; s. c. 2 Robb 655; Matthew v. Skates, 1 Fish. 602; Whittemore v. Cutter, 1 Gall. 429; s. c. 1 Robb 28.

The patentee is not controlled by his title, but the patent, specifications and drawings are all to be examined, and are all to have a fair and liberal construction in determining the nature and extent of the invention. Bell v. Daniels, 1 Fish. 372; s. c. 1 Bond 212; Parker v. Stiles, 5 McLean 44; Pitts v. Whitman, 2 Story 609; s. c. 2 Robb 189; Locomotive Co. v. Railway Co., 6 Fish. 187; s. c. 10 Blatch. 292; 3 O. G. 93.

The patent and specification are connected together and dependent on each other for support. The specification should maintain the title of the patent. The latter should not indicate one thing and the former describe another as the subject of the grant. Sullivan v. Redfield, 1 Paine 441 ; s. c. 1 Robb 477.

Construction.

A patent can not be construed to cover parts which have been omitted, although such omission will not vitiate it, unless they were made with a view to deceive the public. Burden v. Corning, 2 Fish. 477.