portions as really do the work, 80 as not to give undue importance ,to parts used only as a convenient mode of construction. Machine Co. v. MU1'Phy, 97 U. S. 120. Here the pressure in the mains does the work of lessening the flow. In the plaintiff's machine it does it by pl'essing against a valve and slackening the machinery propelling the water; in the defendant's machine it does it by pressing against a valve and lessening the effect of the machinery upon the water. The means are the same, the result is the same, and the mode is different only in form. Foster v. Moore, 1 Curtis, 279. If this was not so the arrangement of the mains, airchamber, relief-valve, and pipes was new, and a material part of the invention, which would be covered and included in this claim of the patent, and which the defendants would have no right to take and use in connection with l[landers' invention. Sellers v. Dickinson, 6 E. L. & Eq. 544, 5 Exch. 312; Lister v. Leather, 8 Ell. & Blackb. 1004. Flanders' pumping apparatus is the equivalent of the plaintiff's, in making up a system of wa.ter-works with these other parts, although it may not be the same thing for other purposes. The question now is not whether they are the equivalents of each other for all purposes, but is whether they are for this purpose. In Sellers v. the patent was for machinery, consisting, among other things, of a clutch-box, operating automatically, to cut off the power from a loom whenever the ehuttle became, entangled, combined with other mechanical contrivances through which the momentum of the sley was made to move a brake against the fly-wheel to take up the momentum of the parts and prevent sudden shock from the stoppage. The clutch-box was old, but its combination with the brake was new. The defendants' contrivance for accomplishing the same object, and for which he had obtained a. patent, dispensed with the clutch-box, and had different con- . trivances from the plaintiff's for applying the momentum of the sleyto the brake. It was argued that the patent was for a combination, and that there could be no infringement unless the whole combination of the same elements was nsed. This argument was over:, __ "u, Pollock, C. 13., saying that if a por-
VERGENNES MAOHINE CO.
tion of a. patent for a new arrangement of machinery is in itself new and useful, and another person, for the purpose of producing the same effect, uses that portion of the ment, and substitutes for the other matters combined with it another mechanical equivalent, that would be infringement, and the plaintiff there had judgment. The defendants here use the pressure in the mains for the same purpose that the plaintiff does, and thereby complete the arrangement of the plaintiff's patent, the same as the defendant there used the momentum of the sley for the same purpose that the plaintiff there" did, thereby completing the combination of that patent. ' These views do not differ from the decision in Prouty v. Ruggles, 16 Pet. 336, and. like cases, where it is held that a patent for a combination of several parts to accomplish a result is not infringed by a combination of less of the same parts, alone, or with others substantially different, to produce the same result. That case was put expressly upon the ground that neither any of the parts, nor any portion of the combination less than the whole, was new. The patentee is entitled to the exclusive use of the whole of his patented invention; a.nd if it is of a combination of numerous parts, including in it other new and useful combinations of less of the parts, he seems to be entitled to the exclusive use of these lesser combinations, as well as to the exclusive use of the whole. Sharp v. Tifft, 12, O. G. 1282. The pumping appara.tus of Flanders may be an improvement upon that of the plaintiff, and properly patentable as such, so as to entitle him to'the exclusive use of those particular devices; but,that would give 'him no right to use his devices to infringe the plaintiff; patent with, although this fact may be of impor; tance in determining the amount of profits or due to such infringemen t. The other patent is for a dash-pot combined with a safetyvalve upon water pipes subjected to great pressure, to steady the motions of the valve in opening and closing. The dashpot is an old and well-known contrivance for steadying motion, but it had never been combined with such valves before. The defendants use a dash-pot in the same combination, b::t they v.4,no.1-6
claim they do not infringe because their dash-pot is different froJIl the plaintiff's. The plaintiff's is closed at the top and receives water, in which the loose piston works, at the bottom from the main on which it is placed. The defendants' is open at the top and receives water there, and is closed at the bottom. Their operation in steadying motion is alike. The pressnre of water in the mains may communicate some motion to the piston in the plaintiff's dash-pot which it cannot do to that of the defendants', but that is not noticed in the patent. The dash-pots each accomplish the same result, by the same means, in substantially the same way. The combination is the same, and the use of theirs by the defendants infringes the patent of the plaintiff. Machine Co. v. Murphy, 97 U. S.120. It has been urged in argument that the defendants only 'make and sell the Flanders pump, and that they do not infringe the plaintiff's patents, although their purchasers may have infringed by putting them into systems of water-works. n all they did was to make and sell these pumps merely, probably they would not infringe by that alone. But the answer and proofs go beyond this. Flanders, in his testimony as to what works they have put up, does not limit what they did to making and selling the pumps merely. The effect of the whole cleady is that they participated and concurred in putting in the whole by furnishing the pumps for that purpose, and this is sufficient to make them liable as infringers. Bowker v. DOW8, 15 O. G. 510. Let a decree be entered that the first claim of the reissued patent and the other patent are valid; that the defendants have infringed both; and for an injunction and an account, with costs.
BENEDICT .. B,URNHAM MANUF'G CO.
BURNHAM MANUP'G CO.
(Circuit Oourt, D. OOnluctieut. --,1380.)
PATENT-INFRINGEMENT.-Letters patent issued to Edward A. Locke on August 2, 1869, for an improved revenue stamp for barrels, sustained.
Stephen W. Kellogg and John S. Beach, for plaintiff. Calvin G. Childs, U. S. Dist. Att'y, for defendant. SHIPMAN, D. J. This is a bill in equity to' restrain the defendant from the alleged infringement of letters patent for an improved revenue stamp for barrels. The patent was issued to Edward A. Locke on August 2, 1869, and was assigned to the plaintiff on November 10, 1875. Prior to and at the date of the invention'the internal revenue stamp which was used by the United States government upon pack. ages of distilled spirits, and which wa.s called the "tax-paid stamp," was constructed of two pieces of paper. Before the stamp was printed the paper of whioh the' body of the stamp, was composed was perforated with a round aperture, about one and a half inches in diameter. To the back of the .paper was then attached,by paste or muoilage, a piece of tissue paper, completely covering said aperture. The stamp was then printed, the engraving oovering both the body of the paper and so muoh of the tissue paper as appears through the aperture. One objeot of Locke was to make a revenue barrel stamp which should be so destroyed by the removal of a part thereof that the stamp oould not be subsequently fraudulently used. a.nd that the removed part should also contain' and exhibit such identifying marks that the facts that the tax had been plloid upon the oontents of the barrel to whioh the stamp had been affixed, and that it had been destroyed, should always appear. The principle of Locke's invention was to construot the stamp so that a part, upon which was impressed identifying marks corresponding with similar marks upon the stub, and which was suoh a well-known part that its removal would destroy the stamp, could, after the stamp had been detached from the stub and had been affixed to a package,