82 FEDERAL REPORTER. �daim they do not infringe because their dasli-pot is different from. the plaintifif's. The plaintiS's is closed at the top and receiTea 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 ia closed at the bottom. Their operation in steadying motion is alike. The pressure 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 resuit, by the same means, in substantially the same way. The eombination ia the same, and the use of theirs by the defendants infringes the patent of the plaintiff. Machine Co. y. Murphy, 97 U. S. 120. �It bas 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. If ail 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 testi- mony 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 clearly is that they participated and concurred in putting in the whole by furnishing the pumps for that purpose, and this is sufiScient to make them liable as in- fringers. Bowker v. Dows, 15 0. G. 510. �Let a decree be entered that the first claim of the re- issued patent and the other patent are valid; that the defendants bave infringed both; and for an injunction and an account, with oosts. ����
