In an old patent case there is found the following statement which has become almost axiomatic:

The case has been followed. See the writer’s opinion in Martin v. Ford Alexander Corporation, 1958, D.C., 160 F. Supp. 670, 682 , and cases cited in Footnote 33. I there said:

In applying the principle the object has been to give effect to the meaning of the claims and not to use words either to hobble or expand the scope of the claims. Thus in Cincinnati Rubber Mfg. Co. v. Stowe-Woodward, Inc., 6 Cir., 1940, 111 F.2d 239, 242 , the Court refused to limit the scope of the invention to the technical meaning of the word “rock”. And in Martin v. Ford Alexander Corporation, supra, I refused to limit the scope of the invention to the use of a “strain gauge”.

In these and other cases the context showed that a broad interpretation of the words should be given lest the scope of the invention be unreasonably limited or destroyed. But the reverse of the principle is also true. If the inventor, especially when dealing with a device in a crowded field, uses special words which limit the scope of his invention he should, he held to the limitation.

In the case before us, involving Patent No. 2,892,289 for a toy gun, issued to John W. Ryan on June 20, 1959, the problem turns around the meaning of the words “oscillating inertia means” occurring in Claims 5, 6 and 7 in dispute. The claims are printed in the margin. 1

To “oscillate” • means to swing backwards and forwards like a pendulum. I am satisfied from the evidence before me that this invention should be limited in scope to the exact meaning of the word “oscillate” and that a device like that manufactured by the defendant, which achieves a similar movement but does it by “rotation or reciprocation”, does not infringe. It is true that the three claims read upon the accused device but that, in itself, is not conclusive.

As the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated in a case decided on December 12, 1961, Pursche v. Atlas Scraper and Engineering Co., Nos. 16410, 16411, the fact that the claims read upon a device

The elements of the claims in suit may be summarized in this manner:

Claim 5 describes:

1. The rack, a linear rack;

2. The power means which moves the rack, which is a spring;

3. The driven means for converting the movement of the linear rack into a cyclical movement;

4. A connected cyclical sound producing means; and

5. A governor, an oscillating inertia means.

*595 Claim 6 adds a trigger means. As the other devices also have such means, this feature loses all significance.

Claim 7 states, in connection with Claim 5, that an oscillating inertia means contains mass. As all such devices contain this, whether it is reciprocating inertia means or a rotating inertia means or an oscillating inertia means, this feature also loses significance.

These elements exist in the accused device but they function differently even if they achieve the same result. (See, Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co., 1898, 170 U.S. 537, 569 , 18 S.Ct. 707 , 42 L.Ed. 1136 ; Air Devices, Inc. v. Air Factors, Inc. 9 Cir., 1954, 210 F.2d 481, 483 ) Primarily the basic element, the “oscillating inertia means” does not exist in the accused device. The result is there achieved by a rotating or reciprocating means. And one of the plaintiff’s experts admitted that while the patented device is simple and can be built economically the accused device is more complicated in construction and more expensive to produce.

Before the Patent Office the inventor sought a claim (rejected Claim 13) that was broad enough to have covered oscillating and rotating means. The Claim was rejected for the narrower claims expressed in 5, 6 and 7. To expand the Claim now to what the inventor sought before the Examiner would allow him to recapture what he there lost. This cannot be done. (Computing Scale Co. of America v. Automatic Scale Co., 1907, 204 U.S. 609, 617 , 27 S.Ct. 307 , 51 L.Ed. 645 ; Joyce, Inc. v. Solnit, 1939, D.C., 29 F. Supp. 787, 788 ; Air Devices, Inc. v. Air Factors, Inc., supra p. 482-483; D & H Electric Co. v. M. Stephens Mfg., Inc., 9 Cir., 1956, 233 F.2d 879, 883-884 )

If we interpret the Claims in suit as requested by the inventor we would disregard the estoppel which arose from his acceptance of the limited claims. Furthermore, the claims would be invalid for anticipation as their teachings would have to be held foreshadowed in some'of the patents pleaded, especially Douglas,No. 2,790,260; Berger, No. 2,574,952; Daspett, No. 1,863,438; Fujiwara, No. 2,446,698; Sigg, No. 2,684,554; and defendant’s patent, Staller, No. 2,899,766, and prior reduction to practice.

The conclusion we reach that the patent is valid but not anticipated or infringed is a practical and reasonable recognition of the fact that we have here a case of two inventors who invented somewhat similar devices, each of which was found by the Patent Office sufficiently different to warrant recognizing as invention. The following colloquy which occurred in the course of the trial implies a recognition of this fact:

And this decision is a conclusive finding of that fact.

*596 The grounds just stated make it unnecessary to comment on the additional grounds of invalidity alleged in Paragraph IX of the defendant’s Answer. Judgment will, therefore, be for the defendant.

. “5. In a toy gun, a longitudinally movable elongated rack, power means moving said rack in one longitudinal direction; means driven by said rack for converting said longitudinal movement into cyclical movement to operate a cyclical sound-producing means connecting with and operated by said driven means, and oscillating inertia means connected with said driven means to limit the rate of cyclical movement of said driven means and the rate of longitudinal movement of said rack.

“6. The device of claim 5 wherein said power means comprises a tension spring and manually operable means are provided to move said rack longitudinally against the force of said tensiop spring, and wherein trigger means are provided to selectively hold said rack against longitudinal movement by said spring.

“7. The device of claim 5 wherein said inertia means comprises an inertia mass driven in oscillating movement by said rack.”