44 A FEDERAL REPORTER
»The co-ntrivance described by Capt. Manby was intended for ex-
tinguishing fires. ,It was a small, portable air-tight vessel for hold-
ing water, (or water to which might be added some substance, such
as pearlash, to increase its efficiency as an extinguishing Huid,) and
into which atmospheric air had been pumped under sufficient press-
ure to cause the water to spurt out in a stream to the iire when the
stop-cock was opened. The portable cylindrical vessel is quite simi-
lar in design to the portable strong vessel of Graham, but had no
flexible hose tube and nozzle, and was apparently intended to be
taken quite close to the fire. But we look in vain for any suggestion
of the use of carbonic acid gas in connection with Capt. Manby’s
plan or apparatus. The English patent of March 8, 1832, to Bake-
well is for an apparatus for making soda-water and other aerated
waters. The substance of the invention was a device by which the
gas could be conveniently generated in the fountain itself, and to as-
sist in that operation the fountain was supended between two up-
right standards, vibrating freely on two pivots, so as to pour the acid,
contained in a vessel inclosed in the fountain, gradually upon the
V chalk or other substance from which the gas was to be generated.
It is not only nowhere suggested that it could be used for extinguish-
ing a fire, but the machine was so constructed as to prevent such a
use; These are the only anticipating devices suggested which ante-
e date the original application of Graham, and they do not seem to me
to require further consideration.
- ·The patent is further assailed by the respondents upon the ground
(1) that the patent as granted is for several separate and distinct in-
ventions, and therefore void; (2) that the specifications are deceptive
and misleading, and therefore the patent is void; (3) that the patent
covers an invention different from that set forth in the application.
As to the first point, the claims for which the patent was granted
are four. The first and fourth are for the method of extinguishing
nres by a properly directed stream of mingled carbonic acid gas and
water escaping from pressure, and projected by its own expansive
force; the second claim is for a portable apparatus by which the
method_ or process could be usefully applied; and the third is for a
stationary apparatus for the same purpose. If these are all proper
subjects of claim, and are all inventions found in the application of
Graham, then the language of the actof congress which authorizes
thelcommissioner to issue apatent for whatever invention or inven-
tions, where found in the application, is suflicient to justify his action.
-This was lreldsuilicient in Evans v.Eat0n, 3»Wheat. 506. It was de-
cided by the supreme court in- Hoggv. Emeraon,6 How. 483, that two
` or more patents may be united ifthey relateto alike subject, or are
in their nature or operations connected together; Walk. §.180.. The
nature of the several claims of this patent is such that the granting
of them in;one patent, it seemsto me, might .be justided by this rule.
Butl incline to think that the substance of Graham’s invention is