MA.TTHEW8 V. 0HAMBER8. 881 �ferences between his devices and those shown by the earlier patents are less marked and substantial than are the differ» ences between the defendants' devices and those of the plaintif. �The defendants do not use the mechanism described in the plaintiff's first patent, nor anything that is the equivalent thereof . They do not employ a spiral or any spring, nor a disk valve. Neither in form nor in mode of operation is either of their stoppers at ail similar to the stopper described in that patent. �The distinguishing and indispensable features of the plain- tiff's second patent are a compressible valve, capable of being forced into the bottle through the mouth, and incapable of easy passage through it in the opposite direction, and a bot- tle having the interior of its neck so shaped as to present a bearihg surface or seat with which the valve is brought into close contact to close the bottle. These characteristics are ■whdlly wanting in the defendants' devices. The defendants use no valve. Their bottles are closed by a simple wooden or glass plug, which easily passes through the neck of the bottle in either direction, but acts as a stopper when pressed or drawn into a rubber ring placed in the neck of the bottle after the plug is inserted in the bottle. �In my judgment the defendants' devices differ essentially from, and in point of simplicity and utility are vastly supe- rior to, those of the plaintiff. It is true that the defendants' stopper is of suflBcient length to prevent it from turning over in the bottle, and therefore it is contended infringes the third claim of the second patent. But to provide a valve vpith a stem of such length as to prevent it from turning over in its chamber, so that it shall always present itself right to the orifice it is to close, was certainly an old and well- known expedient. In view of this fact, and looking to the terms of the claim, it must, I think, be restricted to the form of stopper shown by the specification. "In ail instances, how- ever, tJie stopper is formed as shown, and is forced into the bottle as seen in figure 2," is the language of the specifica- tion ; and the language of the claim is, "making the entire �v.6,no.9 — 56 ��� �
