BUZZELL V. FIFIEIiD. A65 �Tliat mill is not known to me, and the only other allusions to it, in the record, are two passages in the testimony of the complainants' expert, from whioh I understand that it was made wlth radial arms, like the old sprinklers, which both experts agree are not anticipations of any of these sprinklers which contain a chamber. I therefore pronounce the patent to be valid. �The defendant has improved on earlier sprinklers, and holds a patent, later than the plaintiffs', for his improve- ments; but they are additions, and he uses the plaintiffs' combination, plus a tube, which enables him to have an upward jet of water, and a valve which allows him to shut the water off from the rose, so that the sprinkler may be tumed intq a jet, or both jet and sprinkler may operate simultaneously ; but, whenever the rose is working, the ap- paratus for the jet has no effect upon its operation, or that of the combination of which it is a part, except to divert a Bmall part of the water. �Decree for th^ pomplainants. ���BuZZELL V. FiFIELD. {Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. January 27, 1881.) �1. Patent No. 178,994— Impbovbment in ABBABnrœ Paper— Novbltt. Letters patent No. 178,994, granted J. G. Buzzell, June 20, 1876, for a new article of manufacture, consisting of a strip of flexible inaterial coated upon its outer face with abrasive material, and having said face made convex longitudinally and transveraely, to be applied to the peripheries of wheels for flnishing the heels and edges of boots and ehoea, Md, invalidtoT w&nt oi novelty. �In Equity. �George S. Boutwell, for complainant. �James E. Maynadier, for defendant. �LowBLL, D. J. The plaintiff's patent of June 20, 1876, No. 178,994, is for an improvement in abrasive paper, for finishing the heels and edges of boots and shoes. The stat» �v.7,no^4:— 30 ��� �
