BEFORE JUDGE BLATCHFOED The Bold and Silver Ore Separating Company vs. The United States Disln tegrating Ore Company and Melclior B. Maswi.—The plaintiffs in this cause were the owners of a reissued patent. No. 1,988, reissued June 6,1865, to the Hagan Manufacturing Company and William E. Hagan, as assignees of William E. Hags n, for an improvement in furnaces for washing ores by superheated steam. The defendants were the owners of a patent issued January 3,1665, to C.V.De Forest, Amos Howes* Co., and Geo.E. Vanderburgh as assignees of Melchor B. Mason, for an improved method of desulphurizing and oxidizing metallic ores. Theplain tiffs alleged in the bill in this action that Hagan was the inven-torof theimpr-vementsclaimed in the reissue,No. 1,988, andthat said invention was identical with that coveredby the defendants'patent, and they prayed that the defendants' patent should be adjudged void. The defendants' answer set up that the original patent was not for the hame invention as that covered by their patent, and that the reissue, No. 1,988, was procured for the purpose of fraudulently covering the inventions made and patented by Mason, and was fraudulent and void; that Hagan was not the flrst inventor,and that Mason was, and it prayed that the court would decree that the plaintiffs' patent was void, and the defendants' patent valid. On the argument, it was claimed by the defendants that the reissue, No. 1.988, and the defendants'pa tent did not claim the same tiling, and were not, therefore, "interfering patents," in the sense ofthe thirty -sixth section of the act of July 4,1886. Heldbythe Court.—That the answer doesnot set up that the two patents do not claim the same thing, bui does allege in sub stance that they do cover the same thing. That independent of the admission in the answer, there can be no doubt that the two patents do cover the same invention. That the first claim of one patent is identical with the first claim of the other, and the first claim of the defendants' patent must be held to interfere with the flrst claim of the plaintiffs'patent. That the second claim of the defendants' patent does not interfere. That on the evidence there can be no doubt that Hagan was the flrst inventor of the invention claimed by him in this flrstclaim, or that he intendedto claim it in the original patent, or that the reissue, No. 1,988, is for the same invention. That the weight of the evidence is very preponderating that Mason borrowed from Hagan all that is embodied in the first claim of the uatent, No. 45,803. Decree, therefore, forplaintiffB, adjudging the patent No. 45,803 to be void so far as the process therein described lor removing sulphur, arsenic, phosphorus, and anti- mony from anriferOH8, argentiferous!, and other metallic ores, and for oxidizing the ores by treating them with hydrogen and carbonic acid gases employs or applies superheated steam, substantially as described in the reissue, No. l,9oa, and that the defendants must pay the costs. For plaintiffs, C. M. Keller; for defendants, G. Gifford. Hagan's patent, as reissued June 6, 1885, claims First, Ths employment or application of superheated steam, in the manner set forth,for the purpose of refining or reducing metals, and for the removal of sulphur, arsenic, phosphorus, or other impurities from ores or minerals. Second, The employment or application of superheated steam, for the purpose of calcining and disintegrating quartz rockcontaining silver,gold, or other metals. Third, The employment or application of superheated steam for the refining of iron, and for the converting of iron into semi or pure steel, in the manner set forth. This invention is said to be a very valuable one, hence the decision is important to the whole mining interest.