ZANB V. LOFFB. 231 �lets the valve back when the screw is released. The patent is, in one claim, for the screw as a follower, in combination with the valve ; in the other, for the combination of the screw follower, swivel, valve and spring. The patent is good for a faucet in which the valve is opened and elosed in that man- ner. In the faucet of the defendants the valve is lifted against a spring by a stem, with projections near the valve working against inclines inside the shell of the faucet. �The counsel for the orators argues that these projections and inclines are the equivalent of a screw, and that the arrange- ment infringes the first claim of their patent. The screw would .work both ways — pull and push — or either. The pro- jections and inclines will only pull, as arranged by the defend- ants. They are not the equivalent of the screw for pushing the valves open, as the orators make use of it, and as their patent covers it. The defendants do not use a swivel at aU. They do not make use of the combination of parts mentioned in either claim, nor of what is the equivalent of the parts, for the same purposes. The same thing that distinguishes the orators' faucet from some of the prior devices of Bartholomew distinguishes the defendant's faucet from theirs. No question of infringement was made in Zane et al. v. Peck et al., so far as appears from the opinion of the court by Shipman, J., and, from what is said there about Zane et al. t. D'Este et al., it is probable that none was made there. Those cases, there- fore, furnish no guide as to the question of infringement here, The patent is apparently valid for the partieular improvement which Jenkins invented, but the defendants do not infringe it. �Let there be a decree dismissing the orators' bill of com- plaint, with costs. ����
