Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/456

 ei2 SSDEBAIi BEPOSTEfi. �and replaced; and with another short cylinder beside and opening into the upper part of the piston cylinder, for one of the valves above the piston, and a floating top to the piston cylinder, constituting the other valve above the piston, ail the stationary parts of which could be cast in one piece, and ail the moving parts of which would, when once in operation, be covered with and made air-tight by the water. The patent was intended to cover these improvements. The specifica- tion commences by stating that the invention consists in im- provements in double-acting pumps, and describes the parts constituting the pumps as improved, their objects and modes of operation. There are five claims, the second of which only is claimed to be infringed, and that is for the "com- bination of the piston cylinder, the valve chamber and its valves, by which the water is supplied to and discharged from the lower side of the piston, the water head, and a cylinder cover, which is removable from the pump through the open water head, substantially as described." There cannot be a double-acting pump without two sets of valves — one below the piston, through which the water is drawn when the piston ascends, and another above the piston, through which the water is drawn when the piston descends. Only one pair, the one below the piston, is specifically mentioned in that claim. That pair, with the other parts specifically men- tioned in the claim, and without the pair above the piston, not mentioned, would constitute a single-acting pump only. For such a pump the claim could not be maintained, because of lack of novelty; and as a claim for such a pump it clearly would not be infringed by the pump of the defendant. The defendant argues and insists that, as the inventor separated his claim into parts, each part must stand by itself, and be held to cover only devices mentioned in it. If this construc- tion should be adopted, the patent, so far as this case is concerned, would be defeated. The patent is a grant, and is to be fairly and liberally construed, in favor of the grantee, to effectuate the intention of the parties to it. This is the settled doctrine in this country. Construing acoording to this rule, the whole subject of the patent is to be looked at. ����