In view, therefore, of the statute, the practice of the Patent
Office, and the decisions of this Court, we think that the scope of
letters patent should be limited to the invention covered by the
claim, and that though the claim may be illustrated, it cannot be
enlarged by the language used in other parts of the
specification.
We are therefore justified in looking at the "claim" with which
the specification of the appellee's invention concludes to
determine what is covered by his letters patent.
The claim, so far from covering an angular flange upon the
wheel, expressly excludes such a flange and embraces only a flange
with a curved or rounded corner.
In this case, the description of the appellee's invention is
much broader than his claim. It seems quite clear from the present
form of his specification and from the fact that his application
for a patent was twice rejected, that he was compelled by the
Patent Office to narrow his claim to its present limits before the
commissioner would grant him a patent. In doing this, he neglected
to amend the descriptive part of his specification. He cannot go
beyond what he has claimed and insist that his patent covers
something not claimed merely
Page 104 U. S. 119
because it is to be found in the descriptive part of the
specification.
The appellee is therefore precluded from claiming relief against
the appellant for the use of a flange with a square corner. He is
consequently driven to the second branch of his alleged invention
as set out in his bill of complaint as the basis of any relief
against appellant.
This, as is clear from his claim, consists simply in rounding
off that corner of the inner side of the tire which fits into the
reentrant corner made by the flange upon the rim of the wheel
center so as to prevent the corner of the tire from indenting and
sinking into the periphery of the wheel center.
The charge in the bill of infringement of this part of
appellee's alleged invention is not sustained by the proof. The
answer, which is under oath, denies infringement. Infringement must
therefore be shown by satisfactory proof; it cannot be presumed.
The evidence for the appellee entirely fails to establish this part
of his case. On the contrary, the proof adduced by the appellant is
not only persuasive, but conclusive to show that it never made or
used the flange with the rounded corner.
We are of opinion, therefore, that the record discloses no case
against the appellant. The decree of the circuit court must
therefore be reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to
dismiss the bill, and it is
So ordered.