wrnnums v. sronzmumcrr. 41
it rotates and performs its work in the open river. The defendants,
therefore, do not use the plaintiffs patented invention, unless the im-
mersion of the screen directly in the river is the same thing as its im-
mersion in a vessel containing water let in from the river by means
of the openings described in the plaintiffs specification, or other equiv-
alent means. But who will affirm this? It is in vain to urge that,
the use of a vessel being, in fact, unnecessary, the claims should
be read as if they called broadly for the immersion of the screen in
the water of the river. To eliminate what is a plainly declared ele-
ment of a combination is beyond the province of judicial construction.
Water-meter O0. v. Desper, 101 U. S. 332. Besides, from first to last,
the specification contains no hint that the inclosing vessel could be
dispensed with, and I think it manifest that it had not occurred to
the inventor that the screen could successfully perform its work in
the open stream. It is, indeed, true that underneath the defend-
ants’ screen there is a pan or vessel which catches the screened sand.
Their screen, however, is not immersed or placed therein, but rotates
and does its whole work above it, in the unconfined water of the river.
The outside wings move therein, but they are no part of the screen,
and their work is distinct from and follows the screening.
The prior state of the art here was such that the plaintiffs claims
were necessarily very narrow. Dredging and sand-washing boats
equipped with cylindrical screens, elevators to feed the screen, re-
ceptacles to hold the washed sand, and elevators to carry it away,
were old. How much the plaintiff borrowed from Furnier we have
already seen. Moreover, Furnier’s first claim calls for a hollow screen
revolving on an axis, with one portion always immersed in a vessel,'
through which a stream of water constantly flows from some conven-
ient reservoir. Now, what more has the plaintiff done than devise
his vessel, C, with sides raised above the water-line so as to embrace
the screen, and provided with its water-supply openings? Within
the restricted limits of his claims, his patent may well stand; but, as
the defendants do not use the plaintiffs vessel, or any equivalent
therefor, they do not infringe his rights.
Let a decree be drawn dismissing the plaintiffs bill, with costs.