772 FEDERAL REPORTER. �those of Beyer, Naylor, Waterman, and Eichardson. The experts have produced many valves, said to have been made from those descriptions and drawings, with more or less change. Mr. Hoadley, called by the defendant, considera the description and drawings in Webster to be as explicit and easy to be followed as those of Eichardson. Either descrip- tion, he thinks, would require to be supplemented by experi- ment'before a working valve could be made. Eichardson'a patent, however, has been sustained by the court, and Web- ster's bas not been. �My opinion upon the issue of infringement makes it unneo- essary for me to explain at large the conclusions conceming the state of the art, — at which I have arrived after a patient study of the record, — excepting to this extent : I consider it to be fully proved that some valves had been made before 1866, which operated on the same general principle with that of Eichardson, and were of some value; especially is this true of the Naylor and Waterman contrivances, and probably of Beyer's. Waterman, I may say, is examined as a witness for the complainant, and says, in direct examination, that his valve was not good for much until he changed it with Eichardson's patent in his hand. On cross-examination, he says that the chief difference between his valve and Eichard- son's was that he had a weight, and not a spring; and he testifies that the arrangement for joint ownership was made with Eichardson upon his threat to re-issue his patent and claim the use of the spring. He means to say, I suppose, that the spring was a well-known equivalent for a weight, as it undoubtedly was. Eichardson was twice examined, but says nothing on this subject. If Waterman wishes us to understand that his original invention was useless, he is con- tradicted by his oath to the re-issue. I find that Waterman had a valve of some value, operating through the expansive power of steam exerted upon an additional chamber outside the ground joint. Eichardson assisted in procuring a re-issue of this patent, and he set up the Beyer patent in answer to Ashcrof t, by which we may inf er that he considered both these inventions to be of some value. �In this state of the art, Eichardson describes an annulli ��� �
