464 FEUEBAL BEPOSTEB. �" E is a hollow yessel, which ia formed of a plane and aconvex side, the two forming a semi-globular vessel. The conrex side has a number o* radial ridges, /, /, formed in it at interrals by pressing or otherwise indenting the metal outward at the point -where ridges occur, thus forming grooveson the inner or reverse side of the plate. Along one side of each of these ridges I make perforations, i, i, in the manner of perfo- rating an ordinary gprinkler." �After describing the bearings, etc., he goes on : �" When thus arranged, the holes, c, c, in the upper end of the pipe, or nozzle. A, will communicate with the interior of the vessel, E, and will deliver the water into it. The water will then be forced out through the perforations by the internai pressure, and, as the perforations are all made on the same side of each ridge, the tendenoy of the water to pass out in a straight linewill cause the vessel, B, to rotate automatically." �The question is whether there is enough invention to sup- port the plaintiffs' patent, in changing a semi-globubar chamber with ridges indented in it, and holes in one side of those ridges, into a circular chamber with slanting holes and no ridges. It is not whether Pennington and Beggs would be subordinate to Clark, but whether they can support their patent. �I have already given the state of the art, as shown by the record. Sprinklers had been made upon the principle of automatic revolution, by the water being all forced in one direction ; but the particular means employed by Pennington and Beggs seem to me cheaper and simpler than those of Clark. There is nothing in Clark's patent about holes bored at an angle. On the contrary, I understand that his vessel would revolve better, and that he so describes and draws it, by boring the holes at right angles to the long axis of each .ridge. There would be no occasion for the ridges if it were not so. In short, his ridges are the radial arms of the old sprinklers embedded in a chamber. The plaintiffs dispense with these ridges, Now, there is nothing in the record to inatruct me that this is not a discovery; that a mechanic of ordinary skill and kno^rledge would make this change upon inspection of the Clark patent. In the specification of the defendant's patent, taken out in 1879, there is a statement that his rose, which is like the plaintiffs', is "caused to revolve on the principle of the well-known Barker's mill." ��� �
