SHIRLEY v. MAYER. 39
Brass Oo., 104 U. S. 350; Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 362; S. C. 5
Sup. Ct. Rep. 174. The original patent contained but a single claim,
as follows: .
“Tl18 abrupt or nearly right-angled enlargement of the chimney, as repre-
sented by figure 3, arranged in relation to the lamp burner substantially as
and for the purpose herein speciHed."
It is manifest, from an inspection of this claim in connection with
the specifications, that the feature of the chimney claimed as a new
and useful invention was an abrupt enlargement of the chimney lo-
cated so as to bring the enlargement "at about the base of the burner
cone." The reissue has but a single claim, as follows:
"A lamp chimney having an abrupt or nearly right-angled enlargement on,
or nearly on, a level with the flame, in combination with the conical sides,
and contracted, opening at the top, substantially as set forth."
The points of diiference between the two claims are these: In the
original claim the abrupt enlargement is located so as to come "at
about the base of the burner cone." In the claim of the reissue the
abrupt enlargement is located so as to be "on, or nearly on, a level
with the name." The original claim makes no allusion to the com-
bination of the abrupt enlargement with the conical sides and con-
tracted opening, which is the whole subject-matter of the claim ofthe
reissue.
In regard to the first of these points of difference, the ground taken
by the plaintiff here is that the words "at about the base of the burner
cone" in the original claim are equivalent in meaning to the words
"on, or nearly on, a level with the flame" in the claim of the reissue.
But it seems to me that a chimney having its enlargement at or about
the base of the burner cone, which is as low as it would ordinarily be
practicable to locate the enlargement, comes within the description
of chimney considered by Mr. Justice Bnuousoan in Shirley v. San-
derson, 8 Fed. Rep. 905, where he holds "a chimney with a right-
angled enlargement too low down" to be no infringement of the re-
issue in question. The "chin1neys with short necks," considered by
·Mr. Justice Bnyronronn in Shirley v. Sanderson not to infringe the
Shirley reissue, certainly are more nearly the equivalent of chimneys
with the enlargement "at about the base of the burner cone" than
of chimneys with the enlargement "on, or nearly on, a level with the
iiame." The decision in Shirley v. Sanderson is authority, there-
fore, for holding that by substituting in the claim of the reissue the
words "on, or nearly on, a level with the flame, " in place of the words
"at about the base of the burner cone," used in the original specifi-
cation, a substantial expansion of the patent was effected. If "at the
base of the burner cone " were the equivalent of "on a level with the I
iiame," it would not have been held in Shirley v. Sanderson that chim-
neys with short necks and chimneys with the enlargement too low
down were not covered by the claim of the reissue.
It has been shown on this motion by aifidavit that both the orig-