Kelvin v. Whyte, Thomson & Co. "brackets and are secured by a nut H outside. By drawing the bolts G through "the flanges or sides of the hood a b by the outside nuts H, we get the necessary "strain and adjustment. We then clamp the bolts firmly in their place by "inside nuts N which prevent any jar of the bolts and springs. From the centre " of the diamond-shape piece of metal F we suspend by one or more links I a 5 "specially constructed V-shaped hanger J to carry the knife edges of the gimbal "ring L which has a bent-down extension i to prevent any tendency to displace"ment. The weight of the gimbal ring L and compass bowl M hanging on "these tightened horizontal springs D, E, gives a vertical deflection of about §". "The constant lateral resistance of the springs D and E and links O and P soften 10 "the rolling, pitching or other motions tending to disturb the compass bowl "and card. 66 2 2 The Claims were as follows :-"1. In the mariner's compass suspending the "compass bowl by means of four spiral springs and links arranged in pairs "carried horizontally and strained to opposite points in the sides of a pair of 15 "hoods or brackets by means of which they are sheltered and protected, the "said hoods or brackets being mounted on the binnacle flange. Each pair of spiral springs is connected to the knife edge suspension by means of a "diamond-shaped or other shaped piece of metal through the intermediary of "links substantially as and for the purpose herein before described and illus- 20 "trated on the accompanying sheet of Drawings. 2. The fixing of the suspen"sion spring and links in a line parallel to the top of the compass bowl by such a method that the recoil of the spring is at right angles to the vertical motion "of the compass bowl. This allows the compass to swing in every direction "and at the same time resists with a soft cushion-like tendency every motion or 25 "vibration tending to deflect the compass bowl out of the straight, fore-and-aft, "thwartship or any other angle from its true position, substantially as and for "the purpose hereinbefore described and illustrated on the accompanying sheet "of Drawings." 66 The alleged infringement was made according to the Specification of Letters 30 Patent No. 4885 of 1906, granted to William David Whyte, a Respondent in the present action, for "An Improved Spring Suspension for the Bowls of Ships Compasses," the material parts of which are as follows :-"This invention "relates to the mariners' compass and it has for its object to improve the spring "suspension for the bowl thereof. It has heretofore been proposed to suspend 35 66 Kelvin v. Whyte, Thomson & Co. "the compass bowl by means of what may be termed a horizontal suspension "consisting of a pair of spiral springs or one or more plate springs arranged at "each side of the binnacle and connected with the gimbal ring by links or "cords. My invention is an improvement upon the arrangements of this kind 5" at present in use. 10 66 "Under my invention I use spiral springs fitted in a horizontal or substantially "horizontal manner and arranged so as to give a delicate suspension and yet one that will not, when set in motion by the engines of the ship or otherwise, "vibrate excessively. To prevent this excessive vibration, which is a source of "considerable trouble at present, I arrange the spring or springs, as the case may be, so that the tension on one spring or one part of a spring is not the same as "that on another spring or another part of a spring. 66 "In order that my said invention may be properly understood, I have here"unto appended an explanatory sheet of Drawings, whereon:-Fig. 1 is an 15 "elevation of one form of the spring suspension. Fig. 3 is an elevation " of another form of the suspension. Fig. 4 is an elevation of a third form of "the suspension. 66 "In carrying out my invention, in accordance with the arrangement shown at Fig. 1, I mount on the binnacle rim a the brackets b and through lugs on these 20 "brackets I pass the adjusting screws c, which can be locked in any desired 66 66 66 I position by the milled nuts d and e. The hooks f connect the adjusting screws c with the centres of the curved bars f1, these latter being connected with the smaller curved bars g by the horizontally arranged groups of "spiral springs h. It will be seen that there are two groups of four small 25"springs each, the springs being vertically arranged one above the other and "close together and connected at each end to the bars f1, g. The smaller "bars g are connected together at their centres by the eyes and chain "link i which also supports the ordinary quadrant bearing j by the chain "links k and 7. The gimbal ring m is carried by the ordinary knife edge n 30"working in the bearing j. 66 "It will be seen that when the bowl is placed in the gimbal ring, its weight pulls both groups of springs slightly downwards from their horizontal position, "indicated in dotted lines, to the position shown in full lines. When vertical "vibrations are set up the forces of tension set in action in the springs of each 35 66 group of springs are not the same but vary and I find that this variable ten"sion tends to check the vibrations 30 that the compass remains comparatively "steady. Likewise, when horizontal vibrations are set up the springs of both groups co-act to check or lessen these vibrations. The use of a number of small springs also ensures a delicate suspension and which can be very accurately 10" adjusted. 66 66 66 "In the arrangement shown at Fig. 3 instead of using groups of springs, I " employ a single spiral spring u which is arranged in such a manner as to give practically the same result as the groups of springs. I mount on the binnacle "rim a, a single bracket o to which a second bracket p is secured by the 45 screws q. The ends of this bracket p are bent downwards at right angles, "and through these ends pass the adjusting screws r which can be locked in "any desired position by the nuts s and t. Arranged horizontally and with its "ends fixed to the adjusting screws r is a strong spring u which has a saddle v 66 passing round its circumference at its centre. Around this saddle is a hook w 50" which is extended to form an eye x and which supports, through the chain "link y, the quadrant bearing and knife edge as before. In order to prevent the "saddle moving on the spring it is secured fixedly thereto by means of solder or "the like. With this arrangement the weight of the compass bends the spring "and opens out the under side of the spring more than the upper side so that 55 "the tension on the upper part thereof is not so great as on the lower part. This Kelvin v. Whyte, Thomson & Co. 66 arrangement is not so efficient as that at Fig. 1, but it is easier and cheaper "to make. 66 "In the arrangement shown at Fig. 4 I combine together a grouped spring arrangement and a single horizontal spring. I fit the adjusting screws as in "the first arrangement and connect them by the hooks a1 to the curved bars b1 5 "which are connected to the curved bars c1 by the groups of three springs d1. A "short horizontally arranged spring el connects the two bars c' together while "the quadrant bearing is supported by a saddle and hook as in Fig. 3. This arrangement combines together to a greater or less extent the merits of the arrangements Figs. 1 and 3. 66 66 "Of course it will be understood that I arrange one of the suspensions on "either side of the compass bowl. 66 10 Referring to the Drawings it will be obvious that any vibration of the ship "from any cause will be damped and softened by the spring suspensions before "reaching the adjusted parts of the compass, and yet the arrangements are such 15 "that free movement is allowed the compass in order that it may always occupy "a horizontal position." 66 66 The Claims were :-" 1. A horizontal spring suspension for compasses charac"terised by a spiral spring or spiral springs so arranged that the tension on one "spring or one part of a spring is not the same as that on another spring or 20 "another part of a spring thereby preventing excessive vibration, substantially as hereinbefore described. 2. A spring suspension for compasses characterized "by groups of small spiral springs each group being connected to bars (such as for g) or their equivalent and being so arranged as by their action to prevent "excessive vibration, substantially as herein before described with reference to 25 "Figs. 1 and 2 of the Drawings annexed. 3. An arrangement of the spring "suspension claimed in Claim 2 in which the groups of small spiral springs "with their bars are connected to a horizontal spring from which the gimbal "ring is suspended, substantially as herein before described with reference to "Fig. 4 of the Drawings annexed. 4. The arrangement of horizontal spring 30 "suspension, consisting of a horizontal spiral spring held in position within a "bracket and brought under tension, said spring being provided at its centre with 66 Kelvin v. Whyte, Thomson & Co. a saddle from which the gimbal ring is suspended, substantially as herein before "described with reference to Fig. 3 of the Drawings annexed." No compasses were made with the suspensions shown in Figures 3 and 4 of this Specification. Compasses were made by the Defenders with the sus5 pensions shown in Figure 1, and were sold by them to certain parties who were named by the Complainers on their record. In these circumstances the Complainers asked to have the Defenders interdicted from infringing their Patent and also for interim interdict. The Defenders denied infringement. They offered to keep an account of all sales by them of the compasses in question. 10 They put in a statement of facts, in which the following averments were made : 15 66 "Statement 1.-In the application for the Patent No. 22,031 of 1902 .the "Complainer Francis Wood Clark was stated to be the true and first inventor "of the invention for which the Letters Patent were sought. Neither the said "Francis Wood Clark nor either of the other Complainers was the true and "first inventor of the said invention, nor was the same the original invention "of them, or either of them. The said alleged invention was in fact devised in "1902, prior to the date of said application, by James Spiers engineer, then employed as foreman engineer in the scientific instrument department of "Kelvin and James White Ld., and now residing at 35 Stanley Street West, 20 "North Shields. The arrangement having been devised after prolonged investigation and experiment by Spiers, he made the first model of it "himself, and showed and explained it to the Complainer Francis Wood "Clark, who was foreman in charge of the wood department of the said firm's "business. By Clark it was communicated to the other Complainers, along "with whom he took steps to obtain a Patent for it." 25 66 66 "Statement 2.-The Complainers' alleged Letters Patent are invalid by reason "of the following defects in the Specification relative thereto :-(a) The "Complete Specification is vague and ambiguous in respect it does not clearly "disclose what the invention is, and in particular whether the invention claimed 30" is merely a suspension by means of horizontal springs arranged in pairs, or "the entire special combination, consisting of sheltering hoods, horizontal spiral springs, horizontal links, diamond-shaped metal piece, vertical links "and stirrup attachment or otherwise; (b) The Complete Specification is dis"conform to the Provisional Specification, and claims an invention substantially "different from, and larger than, or not embraced in, that disclosed in the "Provisional Specification; and the Provisional Specification makes no "reference to and does not disclose the use of links in connection with the springs and attachments; and (c) The said Letters Patent do not, by the "Complete Specification or by the Claims or Drawings, sufficiently distinguish 40"between what was old or was in use and well known prior to the date of the "said Letters Patent and what is claimed as being new and the invention of "the grantees thereof." 35 66 66 66 "Statement 3.-The Letters Patent No. 22,031 of 1902 sued on are invalid, in "respect that they do not embrace any subject-matter or invention which, 45 having regard to the state of knowledge at the time, was capable of being "made the subject-matter of Patent. Long prior to the date of said Patent it was matter of common knowledge and practice to suspend a compass bowl "from springs set horizontally and arranged in pairs. Compass bowls suspended "from spiral springs arranged horizontally, in principle essentially the same as the 50"invention described in the Specifications of the said Letters Patent, were made "and used as far back as 1854. In particular the principle and substance of the "said alleged invention, as applied to marine compasses, were anticipated, "described, disclosed, and published in the Specification or Specifications and diagrams relative to the following Letters Patent, viz. :-(a) Letters Patent to 55" John Gray, dated 28th August 1854 (No. 1884 of 1854); (b) Letters Patent 66 66 66 66 66 Kelvin v. Whyte, Thomson & Co. "to John David Castle, dated 4th January 1899 (No. 182 of 1899). Marine compasses embodying inventions or contrivances similar to and substantially "identical in principle with the said alleged invention were manufactured and 66 sold under said respective Letters Patent. Other compasses also, in all "essentials embodying such simila rcontrivances, were, apart from said Letters 5 "Patent, extensively made and sold prior to the date of the Letters Patent founded on by the Complainers. In particular such compasses were made "and sold by, inter alios, from about 1861 onwards, by James Whyte, marine compass maker, Broomielaw, Glasgow (the predecessor in business of the "Respondents); and during the last ten years by Messrs. Heath & Co., 10 "of Crayford and Tower Royal, London, nautical instrument makers, who during "said period have made and sold a compass known as the 'Hazzenith' compass, comprising a horizontal suspension from springs, links, and stirrups essentially "the same as that described by the Complainers. Link and stirrup attachments "such as are described in the Specification of the Letters Patent sued on have 15 "no such novelty as to be proper subject matter of Patent. They were at the "date of the said Letters Patent of the common stock of mechanical knowledge, "being old and well-known devices in common use by engineers and instru"ment makers. In particular such arrangements were described, shewn, and "published in the Specifications and Drawings relative to (a) Letters Patent to 20 "Sir William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), dated 20th February 1879 (No. 679 "of 1879); (b) Letters Patent to Lord Kelvin, dated 27th December 1893 (No. 24,841 of 1893); (c) Letters Patent to William David Whyte, dated "30th December 1895 (No. 24,917 of 1895), applicable to marine compasses; "(d) P. Cameron's book on Variation of the Compass,' 1st January 1859; and 25 (e) Mechanics' Journal' of 1857." 66 "Statement 4.-The invention claimed by the Complainers as applied to compass bowls was moreover directly anticipated in all essentials by said "Letters Patent No. 182 of 1899 granted to John David Castle. The diagram "appended to said Letters Patent, which shows four spiral springs arranged 30 "horizontally in pairs, each pair being connected on the one hand together by a "flexible cord, and on the other hand to the binnacle by tightening screws, is in "all essentials an anticipation of the Complainers' Patent." The Defenders also averred that in their invention the springs were not all subject to the same tension, but were so arranged that an interaction was set up, 35 which tended to reduce vibration. The Complainers denied the Defenders' statements of fact. They averred· on Record that Lord Kelvin and Mr. Clark were the inventors, but on the morning of the proof amended their pleadings to the effect that Mr. Clark alone was the inventor. They explained that at the date of the invention James Spiers 40 was an assistant in the employment of the Complainers' firm, and that he only worked under the instructions of Lord Kelvin and Mr. Clark. They explained that none of the compasses referred to embodied the improvements characteristic of their invention, and that that of Castle in particular, while making provision against sudden vertical motions, did not give appreciable protection against 45 sudden motions of the binnacle parallel to the line of the pair of springs or procure the all round equal cushion-like resistance, which was claimed for the Complainers' suspension. The Complainers pleaded infringement. The Defenders pleaded inter alia :"2. The Complainers not being the true and first inventors of the subject- 50: "matter of said Patent, have no title to sue. 4. The Complainers' Letters Patent "being invalid as libelled in respect of-(a) Ambiguity in the Specification and * Other instances of prior user were averred on Record, but in the proof and debate those here given were relied on.-J.C. |