NEW YORK BUNG & BUSHING CO. V. HOFPMAN. 201 �in the patent of Taylor, and the rigid casing for the wooden busliing in the iron casing for the wooden bung in the patent of Euegg, the simple wooden bushing of the reissue in the yielding bushing of the patent of Netzan and Heck, and the wooden bushing of a vent- tube driven through a bung in the patent of Kirby; but still, as argued for the plaintiff, no one of these shows all the elements of this invention as shown in either the original patent or the reiesue. None of them had a yielding bushing like one made of wood in an iron outer bushing or casing, forming a oompound bushing yielding to the faucet or vent-tube, and rigid and supporting to the barrel, as the plaintiff's bushing a,nd casing is, It is also true, as bas also been argued for the defendant, that the defendant does not himself make or use, or vend to others to be used, the whole patented inven- tion of the plaintiff, so but that, if the whole stopped where he stops, there would be no infringement. Bnt it does not stop there. He f umishes the means which af terwards became, and intended they should become, the oompound bushing described in the reissued pat- ent, and in that manner direotly procured the infringement to be done, if any was done, by those tapping the bungs to draw the beer ; and he is himself liable, if any one is, for that infringement. Wal- lace V. Holmes, 9 Blatchf. 65; Cotton Tie Supply Go. v. McCready, 17 Blatchf. 291. So the original patent was valid, and the reissued pat- ent is inf ringed ; and the turning question in the case is whether the original patent will support the reissue. �The original patent described a wooden bushing inside an iron one, or a yielding one inside a rigid one, and if the description had been general, as this statement is, it would have covered what the reissue describes and claims broadly. Such, however, is not the case. The original describes the double-conical form of wooden or yielding bushing only, and this form is described to be of the very essence of that part of the invention, and of the combination of which the wooden bushing was an important part. Thompson was not the original inventor of bushings, nor of wooden bushings, nor of. iron bushings, for which any patent bas been granted underlying all others s of either class, so as to give a monopoly of them. He is subsequent to Taylor, Euegg, and Kirby, and could only have a patent for what was distinguishable from their inventions, and his patent could be valid only for that. Bailway Co. v. Sayles, 97 U. S. 554. The form of the wooden bushing was an important part of what so distinguished it, and when form is of the substance of an invention, it is not to be dis- regarded. Machine Go. v. Mwphy, 97 U. S. 120. Thompson in- ��� �
