PATENTS ACTS AND RULES NOW IN FORCE Statute of Monopolies, 1624. Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1883. Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks (Amendment) Act, 1885. Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1888. Patents Act, 1901. Patents Act, 1902. Patents Rules, 1903. Patents Rules, 1905. Law Officers' Rules for Appeals, 1883 (Appendix to the repealed Patents Rules of 1890). Register of Patents Agents Rules, 1889, 1891, 1902. Board of Trade Order fixing January 1st, 1905, as the date for the coming into operation of Section 1 of the Act of 1902. PRIVY COUNCIL RULES Privy Council Rules, 1897. Privy Council Rules, 1903. APPENDIX B SELECT LIST OF GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS Select Committee, House of Commons, 1829 (332). Treasury Committee, Signet and Privy Seal Offices, 1849. Select Committee, House of Lords, extension of Designs Act of 1850, 1851 (47). Select Committee, House of Lords, 1851 (77). Select Committee, House of Lords, 1851 (486). Abstract of replies to circular despatch of 1853, extension of patents to the Colonies (Colonial Office, 1856). Select Committee, House of Commons, Patent Office Library and Museum, 1864 (504). 128 Reports to the Commissioners of Patents concerning accounts, 1865 (173). Royal Commission, 1865 (5974). Select Committee, House of Commons, 1871 (368). Select Committee, House of Commons, 1872 (193). Select Committee, House of Lords, Confirmation of Patents, 1887 (100). Board of Trade Committee, Duties, etc., of the Patent Office, 1887 (C.-4968). Select Committee, House of Commons, Patent Agents Bills, 1894 (235). Board of Trade Committee, various suggestions, 1900 (Cd. 210). Board of Trade Committee, Working of the Patents Acts, 1901 (Ch. 506). Board of Trade Committee, specified questions, 1901 (Cd. 506). Brussels Conference, the International Convention, 1901 (Cd. 603, in continuation of C.-9014 of 1898). Copy of note by Solicitor-General, 1902 (Cd. 1030). Annual Reports of the Commissioners of Patents from 1853 to 1884. Annual Reports of the Comptroller-General of Patents from 1884. Instructions to Applicants for Patents, 1903. Patent Office Library Bibliographical Series and Search Guides. APPENDIX C The general outlines of the English patent law can be gathered from a study of selected cases which, compared with the many hundreds of reported cases, are relatively few in number. The following list contains, by way of example, those that are of immediate interest to the student wishing for a closer acquaintance with principles. The cases are placed under topical headings, but it will be found that particular cases deal also with subjects beyond the scope of the headings under which they directly appear. Representative cases for a first reading are denoted by asterisks. Reports of the cases will be found in a convenient form in Goodeve's Abridgments of Patent Cases (G.P.C.) ed. 1884, and, for cases subsequent to the year 1883, in the Reports of Patent, etc., Cases (R.P.C.) published at the Patent Office, of which single numbers are obtainable. The number before the initials represents, in accordance with custom, the volume of the Reports referred to, and the number after the initials the page of that volume. I SELECT LIST OF STUDENTS' CASES THE INVENTOR AND PATENTEE.-*Rex v. Arkwright, G.P.C. 15; Beard v. Egerton, G.P.C. 39; Patterson v. Gas Light, etc., Co., G.P.C. 362; Steers v. Rogers, 10 R.P.C. 245. THE INVENTION; A MANUFACTURE.-Boulton v. Bull, G.P.C. 70; *Ralston v. Smith, G.P.C. 395; Automatic Weighing Machine Co. v. Knight, 6 R.P.C. 297. NOVELTY.-Morgan v. Seaward, G.P.C. 307; Hills v. Evans, G.P.C. 248; *Plimpton v. Malcolmson, G.P.C. 374; Harris v. Rothwell, 4 R.P.C. 225; Elias v. Grovesend Tinplate Co., 7 R.P.C. 455. SUBJECT-MATTER.-Harwood v. Great Northern Railway Co., G.P.C. 224; *Morgan v. Windover, 7 R.P.C. 131; Pirrie v. York Street Flax Spinning Co., 10 R.P.C. 34. UTILITY. *Philpott v. Hanbury, 2 R.P.C. 33; Easterbrook v. Great Western Railway Co., 2 R.P.C. 201. CONFORMABLE TO LAW, ETC.-Badische Anilin, etc., v. Thompson, etc., 21 R.P.C. 473. THE SPECIFICATIONS.-*Penn v. Bibby, G.P.C. 366; Woodward v. Sansum, 4 R.P.C. 166; Vickers v. Siddell, 7 R.P.C. 292; Gadd v. Mayor, etc., Manchester, 9 R.P.C. 516; Horrocks v. Stubbs, 3 R.P.C. 221; *Edison v. Holland, 6 R.P.C. 243; Rowcliffe v. Morris, 3 R.P.C. 17; Harrison v. Anderston Foundry Co., G.P.C. 221; Kynoch v. Webb, 17 R.P.C. 100. OPPOSITION TO THE GRANT.-Newton's Application, 17 R.P.C. 123. REGISTER OF PATENTS.-Heap v. Hartley, 6 R.P.C. 495; Stewart v. Casey, 9 R.P.C. 9. EXTENSION OF PATENTS.-Parson's Patent, 15 R.P.C. 349. CONSTRUCTION OF SPECIFICATIONS.-British Dynamite Co. v. Krebs, G.P.C. 88; Clark v. Adie, G.P.C. 117; Cropper v. Smith, 1 R.P.C. 81; *Curtis v. Platt, G.P.C. 144; Edison v. Holland, 6 R.P.C. 243; Maxim Nordenfeldt Guns, etc., Co. v. Anderson, 14 R.P.C. 671; *Proctor v. Bennis, 4 R.P.C. 332; Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Leicester, etc., Co., 16 R.P.C. 531. AMENDMENTS OF SPECIFICATIONS.—Moser v. Marsden, 13 R.P.C. 24. THREATS.-Skinner v. Perry, 10 R.P.C. 1. ALIENATION AND DEVOLUTION OF PATENTS.-*Heap v. Hartley, 6 R.P.C. 495; Stewart v. Casey, 9 R.P.C. 9; Guyot v. Thomson, II R.P.C. 541; National Co., etc. v. Gibbs, 16 R.P.C. 339. REVOCATION OF PATENTS.-Norwood's Patent, 12 R.P.C. 214. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION.-Acetylene, etc., Co. v. United Alkali Co., 20 R.P.C. 161. Whether a patent is of the A or B class, depends upon the construction of the specification. If it is of the A type, then what is shown and described in the specification may be by way of example only; if of the B type, then what is shown and described excludes other means or methods from the scope of the patent. A complete construction of a specification would result in a verbal formula which would be applicable to any set of circumstances. In such a case, the allocation of the patent to the A or B class would be unnecessary. |