cannot  show  that  his  invention  is  broader  than  the  terras  of  his
claim  ;  or,  if  the  invention  is  broader,  he  must  be  held  to  have  sur-
rendered the  surplus  to  the  public.  Blades  v.  Rand,  McNally  &
Co.,  27  Md.  Repy,  93.
Where  a  patentee,  in  the  first  instance,  made  broad  claims,
which  were  denied,  it  was  held  that  by  accepting  a  patent  for  a
restricted  claim,  be  abandoned  his  claim  by  construction,  so  far  as
what  was  in  terms  refused  him  was  concerned  ;  and  that  his  action
became  part  of  the  law  of  the  patent,  and  controlled  the  assignee
as  well  as  the  original  patentee.  Blades  v.  Rand,  McNally  &  Co.,
27  Fed.  Rep'r,  93  ;  Otis  Bros.  v.  Crane  Bros.  Manuf.  Co.,  27  Fed.
Rep'r,  550  ;  Roener  v.  Peddie,  27  i'ed.  Bep'r,  702.
The  inventor  of  a  certain  mechanism  assigned  the  invention  to
a  manufacturing  company  of  which  he  was  superintendent,  by
which  it  was  patented  ;  and  he  caused  mechanism  to  be  made  by
the  company,  representing  it  to  be  one  of  the  modifications  of  the
invention  patented  ;  for  the  construction  of  which  the  company  had
special  tools  made,  and  which  it  introduced  to  the  public  as  covered
by  the  patent.  It  was  held,  after  he  had  left  the  company,  that  he
and  all  in  privity  with  him,  were  estopped  from  denying  that  the
mechanism  so  constructed  was  covered  by  the  patent  ;  and  that,  as
to  him  and  them,  an  injunction  against  its  reproduction  should
issue.     Time  Telegraph  Co.  v.  Himmer,  19  Fed.  Rep^r,  322.
