Stanley Matthews, Snow v. Lake Shore M. S. Railway Company…
“ On this appeal it is argued, on behalf of the appellants, that this construction of their patent is too narrow; and it is now contended that the detachment of the piston and piston-rod is not an essential part of the description and claim of the invention patented. We cannot, however, but agree with the circuit judge that the language of the specification limits the first claim to a combination in which the piston and piston-rod are detached from each other. In describing his invention in the introductory part of the specification, the patentee manifestly divides it into two parts. ”
