Thus we find that in the original application it is expressly declared that the nature of the invention consists in the construction and novel arrangement of the pump stock, the cylinder or pump proper, the air chamber, and discharge pipe. The first and second claims in the patent cover the combination of the pump stock, the cylinder, the tubular air chamber, and the discharge pipe, and it clearly appears in the specification that the patented combination expressly provided for the immediate connection of the tubes forming the air chamber and the discharge pipe with the cylinder, being connected therewith through elbows opening into opposite sides thereof and in the same horizontal plane. In the testimony of James W. Lee, an expert witness called by the complainants, is found the following exposition of the merits of the Bean patent:

"In this patent, the pump stock is located as usual, and so is the spout and other parts pertinent to the pump; the pump barrel is located as far down as is desired; the discharge pipe leads up from the barrel to the spout. and is attached to the pump stock, and forms a water way and also a support for the barrel, but the piston rod does not pass through the discharge pipe at all, but passes up entirely independent of the discharge pipe, the discharge pipe being connected with the barrel to one side of the center, so as to not interfere with or be interfered with by the piston rod. There is no air chamber on the pump stock, as usual. A second pipe, closed at its top, is firmly connected to the pump stock, and goes down parallel with the discharge pipe, and connects with the barrel again at one side of the center of the barrel, so as to have nothing to do with the piston rod. This second pipe forms the air chamber, and it also forms one supporting leg extending from the pump stock to the barrel. It is not only an air chamber, but it is a good one and properly placed. It is long, as long as the distance between stock and barrel, and that is the proper form for an air chamber, so that the water, acting in its lower end, acts like a piston in a cylinder pressing upward on the elastic air within it. And it is properly located, for its lower end is in communication with the pump, right where the shocking force of the 'water ram' originates. In the old construction, it was put way up on top of a column of water, and the distance between the barrel and the air chamber always equaled the distance between the barrel and the stock. In the Bean patent, the distance between the barrel and the air chamber is zero. It will, therefore, be readily understood that in the Bean construction the pump barrel finds a support in the air chamber; that it finds an additional support in the discharge pipe; that the tubular air chamber, by its peculiar disposition, is peculiarly efficient as an air chamber, independent of its office as a support for the barrel; and that the discharge pipe and air chamber connect. with the pump barrel at opposite sides, leaving the central or piston rod point unobstructed."

It is entirely clear that, in the original patent, Bean did not seek to patent as his invention a tubular air chamber. The patent is for a combination which includes as one of its elements a tubular air chamber, also serving as a support or connection between the cylinder and pump stock, but it does not cover or protect a tubular air chamber, except as part of the combination. Thus a pump constructed with a tubular air chamber, not serving, however, as a support to the pump, would not infringe the claims of the patent. In the testimony of the witness Lee, as above quoted, it is said that the chief merits of the combination consist in the air chamber acting as a support, and also in the position of the air chamber, whereby the distance between the air chamber and the barrel being reduced to zero, the elastic force of the air in the chamber acts directly at the pump, where the shocking force of the water originates. It is apparent that, as complainant's expert understands or construes the Bean combination, it requires the placing the pump cylinder between the lower ends of the tubes forming the air chamber and the discharge pipe, and this accords exactly with the description in the original application and with the drawing attached to the patent. Thus it is made clear that the combination described in the first claim of the original patent embraces four elements, to wit, the pump stock, the cylinder or pump proper, a support connecting the pump stock and cylinder, and an air chamber. All of these elements were old. Bean was not the original inventor of any one of these elements. In the second claim of the original patent there are likewise embraced the four elements found in the first, but the means of support between the pump and stock is made to include the discharge pipe. The novelty in the combination consists in making one pipe serve the double purpose of an efficient air chamber and a support between the pump stock and cylinder, and the combination is made effectual by bringing the several parts together and uniting them in the mode described in the patent. According to the express statements found in the specifications of the original patent, three beneficial results are obtained from the patented combination: First. A simple yet substantial support for the cylinder, formed by placing the same between the lower ends of the tubular air chamber and the discharge pipe, and firmly bolting the same together. Second. An efficient air chamber, resulting from the lower end of the air chamber being connected with the cylinder through an opening therein opposite to the discharge opening, thus bringing the air chamber into close contact with and giving it direct action upon the water in the pump cylinder. And, third, a direct discharge of the water, independent of the air chamber. These beneficial results were sought to be accomplished under the original Bean patent by a combination wherein the cylinder was fastened between the lower ends of two tubes forming the air chamber and discharge pipe, and which were fastened to the pump stock by bringing the lower end of the tubular air chamber into direct connection with the pump cylinder, and by having the discharge pipe connected with the cylinder through an opening therein opposite to the opening between the air chamber

and cylinder, and this is the combination which is described and claimed in the application upon which the original patent was issued.

On behalf of complainants, it is contended that the invention covered by the original patent belongs to the class known as generic or primary patents, and should therefore be construed broadly and liberally, according to the rule laid down in Winans v. Denmead, 15 How. 330; Electric Co. v. LaRue, 139 U. S. 606, 11 Sup. Ct. 670; Sewing Mach. Co. v. Lancaster, 129 U. S. 263, 9 Sup. Ct. 299; and other cases based thereon. Any valid patent, no matter how narrow in scope, is nevertheless entitled to a fair construction, so as to give the inventor the benefit of all his invention that can reasonably be brought within the claims of the patent, but the rule contended for, under the authorities above cited, is properly applicable to those inventions which originate new and useful results, and I do not deem the Bean patent to be included in this category, and yet the patent is nevertheless to be fairly construed; but, giving the language used in claims Nos. 1 and 2 all the latitude reasonably applicable thereto, I can reach no other conclusion than that these claims cover a combination of the pump stock and cylinder with a supporting tubular pipe acting as an air chamber, and a discharge pipe also acting as a supporter to the cylinder, the mode of combination being to connect the lower ends of the tubes to the opposite sides of the cylinder and the upper portions to the pump stock or flange. The patent does not seek to cover the invention of a tubular air chamber per se. As already said, every element found in the combination, aside from the mere form or position of the parts, was old and well known at the date of the filing of the application for the patent in question. Pump stocks and cylinders were old; air chambers were well known. Connections between the pump stock and cylinder had been in use since pumps were first made, and the use of a pipe as a connection between the stock and cylinder was old; as well as using a pipe, not only as a support or connection, but as a discharge pipe also, thus putting a connecting or supporting pipe to a double use. It seems to me, therefore, that the position of the several elements described in the first and second claims of this patent enter into the combination, and in fact wholly, or at least largely, give it the usefulness relied on as supporting its patentable character. It is said in the specifications that:

"By this mode of connecting the pump stock and cylinder, a substantial support is formed for the cylinder, and it is very simply and readily put together."

The mode of connecting the stock and cylinder thus referred to is by means of two tubes, between the lower ends of which the cylinder is placed, and the parts are firmly bolted together, and the upper portions are fastened to the pump stock. It is further said in the specification that:

"By having two holes in the cylinder, one for discharge and one for air chamber, it gives a place for the air chamber to have a direct action on the water while in use, giving it an even, steady stream, and a direct discharge for the water, independent of the air chamber."