rum rmmsaxrruoursuma casa. 45
contained in the first claim, or in the hrst and fourth claims together,
if there is any difference between them. He claims in his applica-
tion that he is the nrst discoverer that carbonic acid gas condensed
in water can be made, by the use of a suitable apparatus, a useful
self-propelling agent for putting out fires. He then describes the
construction and operation of a machine by which the gas may be
generated, and also describes "one among the various modes by which
it may be app1ied." After describing the apparatus used by him, he
says : "Besides the portable apparatus, there are other ways or meth-
ods by which my invention or discovery may be carried into useful
operation." The inventor was entitled to the exclusive use of the
method or process discovered by him, and was bound only to describe
some particular mode or apparatus by which the process could. be
applied with some beneficial result. Tilghmzm v. Proctor, 102 U. S.
729. I am inclined to doubt the validity of the second and third
claims, if they are to be construed as patents for any particular form
of apparatus or combinations of mechanical elements. There was
nothing new in the portable apparatus intended to be- covered by the
second claim, (unless, perhaps, the flexible hose-tube,) except as ap-
plied to the use of carbonic acid gas and water; and the same may be T
said of the third claim. But if the first claim is valid, the fate of the
second and third claims is not material,—certainly not in this case.
The second point of the objection used by respondents, that the
specification and claims are deceptive and misleading, is sought to
be supported by testimony that in actual use of the apparatus so little
of the carbonic acid gas reaches the hre that its effect as an ex-
tinguisher is not appreciable; that the only use of the gas is .the
elastic force which it exerts in the fountain, to eject the water with
suflicient force to make it reachthe fire; that it is the water alone
which acts as the extinguisher. So that it is urged thatthe pre-
tension in the specification that the gas was an important agent in
smothering the fire is false and misleading. The witnesses who tes-
tified on this point made experiments by catching thestream in open
beakers at some distance from the fountain, and they differed very
greatly as to the quantity of gas which was then foundito remain
commingled with the water. Some claimed that a large quantity ·of
gas remained, and others none at all. These tests were not very
satisfactory. The weight of the evidence is, however, very conclusive
that a stream from a fountain charged with carbonic acid gas and
water in the manner described by Graham is an efficient agent for
the purpose of extinguishing small fires; that the apparatus can be
kept at hand for use in a sudden emergency, and can be operated
without delay and be_fore the fire has acquired headway. It is true,
as claimed by him, that carbonic acid gas combines in a remarkable
degree with water, so that by moderate pressure the water can be
made to receive six to twelve times its volume of the gas; that the
fountains can be kept charged or made to generate the gas when