44e FBDEBAL BEPOBTEB. �defeiidA,nt's pump in the same manner as în the orator's, and in the manner assigned to it in that claim. That part of the orator's invention has been appropriated to the coubtruction of the defendant's puûip. It is not necessary, in order. to constitute infringement of a combination patented as such, that the vthole combination should be used. If a part of it only, that, separate from the rest, was new and. patentable to the inventer, is used, taking that part ia an infringement- pro tanto. ; Lister v. Leather, 8 EU. & B. 1004; Sellera v. Dickin- son, 5 W. H. & G. Exch. 311,. 312. Here the whole of this part of the patented invention is taken for one purpose, but not for ail. It iSi none the less taken, however, and the taking is none the less an infringement because it is not taken for ail purposes. * . , �The defendant's pump is, probably, in some respects, an improvement upon the orator's, but that is no excuse for taking that part which the orator invented, and is not claimed to be. It is said that, as double-acting pumps were well known before, the orator could only have a patent for his particular form, and that the defendant's pump is of different form, and does not infringe. Railway Go. v. Sayles, 97 U. S. 554. And the statements of Mr. Justice Bradley, in the opinion of the court, are oited in support of that argument. Those statements are very applicable to cases like this. It is to be notioed that each inventer is there said to be entitled to his own specifie form only so long as it differa from those of his competitors, and does not include theirs. Here the defendant has included a part of the orator's specifie form of double-acting pump, and cannot shield himself from being adjudged an infringer to that estent. �Let there be a decree for an injunction and an acconnt, aocording to the prayer of tbo bill, with costs. ����
