BLAEe V. mInAB & HAKLAN MANUf'g CO. 823. �In the specification of Carr's re-issue it is said that leak- age at the washer through whioh the stem of the supply-cock passes will, in some cases, be adequate to make the closing of the valve sufficiently graduai, but that he proposes to use, a screw eutered through the cap of the chamber, with a head next said washer, and part of one aide of the screw filed away, so as to adjust the amount of leakage. In the defend- ant's apparatuB there is a small hole in the side of the cham- ber, near the end thereof, where the plunger enters, Connect- ing, by a small enclosed channel, with the portion of the chamber beyond the cup-leather. The plonger and stem in the defendants' apparatus are no more than the stem in Carr's. The differences in the escape channels are formai and not substantial. �The defendants contend that the cup-leather of Carr does not control the motion of the valve in closing gradually, and that it simply acts as a paoking, during the closing of the valve, to entirely prevent any closing, by preventing the water from passing from above. But the language of the claim, in connection with the descriptive part of the specification, is that the action of the cup-leather as a packing, and its graduai movement, permitted by the, slow escape of the waste from above it, control the movement of the valve in closing grad- ually. �On the question of novelty, or as- affecting the construc- tion of the said third claim, the defendants adduce English letters patent No. 8,971, granted to George Hulme for "im- provements in water-closets," the specification of which bears date November 27, 1841. But no witness for the defendant testifies to the existence in Hulme of wtat is iound in the third claim of Carr. There is no cup-leather in Hulme. Hulme's device is one for keeping a valve open for any required length of time for the supply of water to the basin of the water-oloset. He has a bucket with a central poppet- yalve. In place of that the defendants use a cup-leather. �The defendants take the position that the central valve alone was old ; that a cup-leather alone wa» old ; that a pop- pet-valve, in combination with a cup-leather, was old 5 •■ thai ��� �
