Where one originates a generic invention and also several specific inventions and pre sents the same for 'patent contemporaneous ly, he cannot enlarge each invention by use of general terms so as to obtain overlapping patents , Electrical Accumulator Co. v. Elec tric Co.. 5? Fed. 130, 2 C. C. A. 682, 1 U. S. App. 320. An inventor is required to explain the principle of his machine and the best mode of applying the principle, so as to dis tinguish it from other inventions ; but he is not necessarily limited to the one mode shown. A pioneer inventor is entitled to a generic claim, which will include every spe cies within the genus, and may also insert in the same application specific claims for one or more of the species; Von Schmidt v. Sowers, 80 Fed. 121, 25 C. C. A. 323.
A claim must be interpreted with refer ence to the rejected claims and to the prior state of the art, and cannot be so construed as to cover either what was rejected by the patent office or disclosed by prior devices; Knapp v. Morss, 150 U. S. 221, 14 Sup. Ct. 81, 37 L. Ed. 1059.
In the interpretation of a patent, the usual canons of interpretation apply; National Hollow B. B. Co. v. Brake-Beam Co., 106 Fed: 693, 45 C. C. A. 544; Century Elec. Co. v. Mfg. Co., 191 Fed. 350, 112 C. C. A. 8 ; the claims will be fairly construed in the light of the specifications and drawings, and so as to save the patent, if meritorious; Mossberg v. Nutter, 135 Fed. 95 ; Denning W. & F. Co. v. Wire Co., 169 Fed. 793, 95 C. C. A. 259; or if it has won a position of un challenged supremacy in the commercial world ; Consol. Rubber T. Co. v. Rubber Co., 151 Fed. 237, 80 C. C. A. 589; but if the in vention has never been put in use the con struction may be narrow ; National M. C. Co. v. Coupler Co., 171 Fed. 847, 96 C. C. A. 515 ; if two constructions are admissible, that one will be adopted which will give the in ventor the protection to which he is enti tled; Malignani v. 'Lamp Co., 180 Fed. 442. Recourse may be had to the patent office proceedings ; rejected features cannot be re asserted, nor a broad construction insisted upon, when a narrow one was adopted in the office to meet objections of the examiner; Eck v. Kutz, 132 Fed. 758. Construction cannot be aided by parol testimony; Wolff T. F. Co. v. Steel Foundries, 195 Fed. 940, 115 C. C. A. 628; but technical terms may be ex plained by experts; Fried, Krupp Atkien Gesellschaft v. Steel Co., 191 Fed. 588, 112
C. C. A. 194.
The specifications must be interpreted with the claims, •not to contract or expand them, but to ascertain the intent ; Century Elec tric Co. v. Mfg. Co., 191 Fed. 350, 112 C. C. A. 8. Reference may be had to the rejected claims; Williams Patent C. & P. Co. v. Crusher Co., 185 Fed. 805, 108 C. C. A. 37 ; and to the drawings ; Steiner & Voegtly H. Co. v. Sash Co., 178 Fed. 831; and construc tion must be with reference to the state of the prior art; Williams Patent C. & P. Co. v. Crusher Co., 185 Fed. 805, 108 C. C. A. 37; definitions and admissions made in the office to avoid the state of the art are binding on the patentee; New York Asbestos Mfg. Co. v. Air-Cell Covering Co., 103 Fed. 316, affirm ed in 112 Fed. 1022, 50 C. C. A. 669.
A claim for a function is bad ; Matthews v. Shoneberger, 4 Fed. 635 ; though it will, if possible, be construed as a claim for means of performing the function; Royer v. Belting Co., 28 Fed. 850 ; thus a claim for doing an act is treated as a claim for the means of doing it ; Fuller v. Yentzer, 94 U. S. 288, 24 L. Ed. 103.
While the law does not limit the number of claims, their multiplication is disapprov ed; Rostock v. Goodrich, 21 Fed. 316.
A drawing must be filed whenever the na ture of the invention permits; 16 0. G. 809; a model is not required until called for by the patent office.
Of re-issues. It often happens that errors, defects, and mistakes occur in the specifica tion of a patent, by which it is rendered wholly or partially inoperative, or perhaps invalid. Sec. 53 of the act of 1870 provides that when such errors or defects are the re sult of inadvertence, accident, or mistake, without any fraudulent or deceptive inten tion, the patent may be surrendered by the patentee, his executors, administrators, or assigns, and a new patent issued in proper shape to secure the real invention intended to have been patented originally. Rob. Pat. § 658. The identity between the invention described in the re-issue and that in the original patent is a question of fact for the jury ; Burr v. Duryee, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 531, 17 L. Ed. 650. A patentee cannot secure in a re-issue claims covering what has been pre viously rejected upon his original applica tion ; Corbin C. L. Co. v. Lock Co., 150 U. S. 38, 14 Sup. Ct. 28, 37 L. Ed. 989.