No. 939 | U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts | Dec 2, 1898
The plaintiff’s patent is numbered 365,-240, dated June 21,1887, and by the first claim (the only claim in controversy in this suit) is limited to a trolley track. It is true, the specification is somewhat broader than the claim, as it describes an invention which relates to trolley tracks and carriers. The specification then proceeds to describe the object of the invention, which is to provide a track of improved construction, particularly in respect to strength, and a carrier adapted to. move thereon; and it is declared that the invention consists in the peculiar construction and arrangement of the track and carrier. It is manifest that the specification suggests features of construction not embraced in the claim in question. While the claim and specification may undoubtedly be read together for the purpose of better understanding the meaning of the claim (American Sulphite Pulp Co. v. Howland Falls Pulp Co., 80 F. 395" court="1st Cir." date_filed="1897-04-16" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/american-sulphite-pulp-co-v-howland-falls-pulp-co-8858703?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8858703">80 Fed. 395, 405), the specification cannot be accepted as enlarging or extending the invention stated in the claim itself. The claim in question makes no reference to peculiar construction in carrying mechanism or combinations, and therefore limits itself to a trolley track, consisting of a tube of substantially rectangular cross section, at its upper portion, and having the lower edges curved in towards-the median line, and then turned upward, so that the bottom of the tube has a rounded trough at each, side of a longitudinal central opening.
The substantial and principal feature urged as invention is involved in the idea of a rounded trough or groove, which, when used as a track for carrying purposes, guides the .wheel, which naturally and necessarily seeks the lowest point of the groove, thereby avoiding friction and better distributing the load. It is true, the argument is made that the form of the structure of the track or tube is such that additional strength is supplied, and the specification, so far as it describes the object as one to provide a track of improved construction, particularly in respect to strength, may fairly enough be considered in connection