Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/652

 '638 federal bepobteb. �which recejptacîe communicates with the hoày of the bottle below, by an orifice which is to stnall to allow the sphere to pass down. The mouth of the bottle above the sphere is too small to allow the sphere to pasa out above. The sphere is loose, and there is no spring. In the inside of the mouth is an annular groove, in which a ring of India rubber is inserted, with which the sphere, whenit is to act as a stopper, cornes in contact, and against which, as a seat, it is pressed to make a tight joint by the upward action of the gas in the liquid below. The recepta- cle referred to is of greater diameter than the neck above it, and of less diameter than the bottle below it. The bottle is opened by inserting the finger or some pushing instrument in themouth, and pressing the sphere downward, causing it to leave its seat, and allowing the liquid to be poured out. The sphere, when the bottle is emptied, rests on the bottom of the receptacle referred to, over the orifice which leads into the body of the bottle. �It is alleged that the first and second claims of this patent are infringed by Codd No. 2. As the sphere in the bottle eannot pass out through the mouth, and as it is not inserted through the mouth of the finished bottle, it is put in before the bottle is finished. The bottle is made with the receptacle and the neck, and then the sphere is put in through the neck, and then a ring of melted glass is put on the outer end of the neck to form the finished mouth. The first claim of the re-issue does not contain the words "substantially as speci- fied," but it must be construed as if those words were in it. Every claim of a patent bas reference to the descriptive part of the specification. In the plaintifif's bottle, the stopper can pass in through the smallest part of the mouth of the finished bottle. This is dwelt on in the specification as "an important feature of the invention," and is made an integral part of the first claim. This feature does not exist in Codd No. 2. The stopper in that eannot pass in through the mouth of the finished bottle. The first claim is not a claim to any mech- anism ; but, if not a claim to a f unction, is a claim to a mode of operation. It amounts to a claim to inserting a stopper through the mouth of a bôttie, and then pressing it upwards ����