THATCHBB HEATINO CO. V. 8FBA.B. el5 �clinker cleaning passage shall be enclosed by a plate connected with the fire-pot, furnace front and ash pit, which shall pre- vent communication with a hot-air chamber surrounding the fire-pot, and that the downward passage shall be Tirholly between the furnace front and the grate, and none of it out- side of the furnace front. No such arrangement îs found in Morrison's structure. �The material question is that of infringement. In the defendants' structures, represented by the plaintiff's exhibits D, E, F, G, H and I, and which are represented, also, in substance, by the defendants' model, "Anti-clinker Heater," the anti-clinker arrangement for cleaning the grate is placed ■wholly below the hot-air chamber, and below the bottom of the fire-pot and within the ash pit. The clinker cleaning passage does not go through the hot-air chamber. In the Thatcher arrangement the clinker cleaning passage is above the ash pit and goes through the hot-air chamber. As the defendants do not have the clinker cleaning passage of the second claim of the Thatcher patent, they do not have the clinker cleaning passage of the third claim, and so neither claim is infringed. �Nor do the exhibits K and L and Angus' stove infringe either the second or the third claim. They do not have any hot-air chamber surrounding the fire-pot, and so do not infringe the second claim. They do not have the clinker cleaning passage of the third claim, because they do not have the clinker cleaning passage of the second claim, enclosed by the plate of the second claim, shutting ofE communication with a hot-air chamber surrounding the fire-pot. �The biU is dismissed, with costs. ��� �
