¶1William L. Curtis, of Fort Smith, Ark., for appellant.
¶2P. Preston Swecker, of Washington, D. C., and Ed. M. Whitaker, of Midland, Tex., for appellee.
¶3Before SIBLEY, HUTCHESON, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
¶5Suing for a declaratory judgment that a reverse, circulation device he used for cleaning out oil wells did not infringe upon the Childs Patent, owned and claimed by appellant, appellee obtained the judgment that he sought. This was based upon findings1*848that Claims 1, 2 and 4,2 the only claims at issue, were not infringed and in addition *849that Claim 4 was invalid for want of invention. Appellant here insisting that the district judge too narrowly limited the invention claimed in patent Claims 1 and 2, to an apparatus causing reverse circulation by the use of valves and valve outlets, urges upon us that this deprived appellant of its right to claim infringement by the use of equivalents. He urges that it was error too, to hold Claim 4 invalid for lack of invention and because of prior public use.
¶6Making much of the fact that appellee at one time worked for it and of his testimony that though his device was equipped with valves, appellee avoided their use so as not to infringe appellant’s patent, and vigorously attacking the testimony of. Waldrop as to prior use, appellant cites and discusses many authorities in support of his claim to invention and that under the Doctrine of Equivalents, appellee’s device clearly infringes. It will serve no useful purpose for us to set out the testimony or discuss appellant’s authorities. If we could agree with appellant that its device represents a broad advance in the use of reverse circulation in the well cleaning art and that its patent claims are entitled to a broad construction, we should certainly agree with it that appellee’s apparatus infringes. But we agree with appellee and the trial judge that the evidence makes it quite clear that the use of reverse circulation is old, both in the art and in prior use, and that unless there is invention in the use of the valves precisely claimed in Claims 1 and 2, valves which appellee does not use, nothing in the claims present anything savoring of newness or invention. We agree with appellee too that the evidence supports, indeed overwhelmingly establishes, the finding of the trial judge that Claim 4 is nothing but an effort to broadly claim what by disclosure and by use was already public property, an apparatus for well cleaning by the use of reverse circulation, and is therefore invalid. We also agree with appellee that if there was invention in the valve system shown in Claims 1 and 2, which we do not find it necessary to decide, plaintiff’s apparatus does not use valves and therefore does not infringe. The judgment was right. It is affirmed.