Samuel Blatchford, Flower v. City of Detroit — Opinion of the Court
“ Infringement is alleged only of claims 1 and 3 of the reissue. As to the casing, C, of the third claim, it cannot, any more than the casing, C, of the first claim, be held to cover a casing which has the independent up and down motion referred to. Such casing must be construed to be the casing exhibited in the drawing annexed to the original patent; that is, one in which the up and down play is restricted by the overlapping bead or flange. On any other construction' claim 3 is an unlawful expansion, in regard to the casing, of what is found in the original patent. ”
