80 FEDERAL REPORTER. �portions as really do the work, so as net to give undue im- portance to parts used only as a convenient mode of construc- tion. Machine Go. v. Murpky, 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 pressing against a valve and slackening the maohinery propelling the water; in the defendant's machine it does it by pressing against a valve and lessening the effect of the maohinery upon the water. The means are the same, the resuit is the same, and the mode is different only in form. Foster y. Moore, 1 Cnrtis, 279. If this was not so the arrangement of the mains, aîr- chamber, 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 Flanders' invention. Sellers v. Dickinson, 6 E. L. & Eq. 544, 5 Exch. 312; Lister V. Leather, 8 Eli. & Blackb. 1004. Flanders' pumpingappa- ratus is the equivalent of the plaintiff's, in making up a Sys- tem of water-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 ail purposes, but is whether they are for this purpose. �In Sellers v. Dickinson the patent was for machiuery, con- sisting, among other things, of a clutch-box, operating auto- matioally, to eut off the power from a loom whenever the ehuttle became- entangled, combined with other mechanieal 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 accom- plishing 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 sley to 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 used. This argument was over^ _. od, Pollock, G. B., saying that if a por- , ����
