SHARP V. TIFFT. 69Ï) �the original, but the claim is very much enlarged. It is ex- panded into two. The first is the combination of the outlet, the perforated diaphragm, and the chambers intermediate between the diaphragm and outlet, Bubstantially aa described. The second is substantially the same as the claim of the orig- inal patent. Had there been no buruers for gas stoves before, or none with a perforated diaphragm, chamber between that and the outlet, and outlet beyond, he would have been entitled to hold this whole arrangement free from invasion; but as there were burners having ail these elements, arranged in the same order, although of different form and capacity, he was en- titled only to his particular form of devices which were really different from those which had been in use or known before, and the combination of those devices with each other or with oth- ers, so as to produce a new result, or an old resuit in a new •way. Raïlway Co. v. Sayles, 97 U. S. 554. He had a new form of diaphragm, a new form of chamber between it and the outlet, and a new form of outlet to the flame. He was entitled to these forms, and to his combination of them, but not to the forms of others, or to their combinations. Since this sui*; was brought he hasfiled a diselaimer to everyburner described in the first claim except those constructed of the two plates, bolted together by the boit, and holding a perfo- rated diaphragm between them. �If the patent should be construed broadly enough to cover . ail forms of diaphragms, mixing chambers and outlets, sepac rately or in combination, it could not be sustained at ail with- out something to eut it down to the particular devices and arrangement of Kelly, The boit is no part of the combina- tion of either claim. It is used in the construction of this particular form of burner, and the reference to it in the dis- elaimer is merely discriptive of that form, without taking away or adding anything. So of the plates holding a per- forated diaphragm between them. In this construction they hold a vertical diaphragm between them. If the patent will cover aBy other form of diaphragm held between them, the diselaimur does not disown the other form ; if it does not, the diselaimer will leave this particular form. So, in either case, ����
