Harrison Patents Company Ld. v. W. N. Nicholson & Sons Ld.

"The slot in the block b is preferably made deeper at the front than the depth "of the tine as shown in Figures 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Thus when the "tines a are in work they will be kept in a continual state of vibration and "should they meet with a hard piece of land or other obstruction the springs c "can only be compressed until the forks a2 come into contact with the guide 5 "blocks b when the tines will act as non yielding tines until the obstruction is

passed, they will then spring back to their normal position. It will be under"stood that the tines act independently of each other so that some might act as "unyielding tines whilst others are free to yield.

"Passing through holes b in the guide blocks b is a shaft g on the ends of 10 "which are fixed cranks g' provided with pins g2, on which the ground or supporting wheels g3 are mounted.

66

"This shaft g is mounted in journals formed in brackets h1 fixed to and forming part of the frame h. A lever i is also secured to the shaft g; this "lever is fitted with a spring pawl i operated by a hand lever i2 and said pawl 15

5

66

Harrison Patents Company Ld. v. W. N. Nicholson & Sons Ld.

"is capable of being engaged with any of the notches of the quadrant f' which "latter is fixed rigidly to the bar f. By these means the angle of the cranks g1 "and consequently the height of the rear part of the frame h can be varied, and by the alteration of the angle of the cranks together with the adjustment of the tilting lever j hereinafter described, the tines can thereby-enabling-all-the"-tines-to be regulated to an equal working depth at any depth required in "practice, whereas in other systems of cultivator with a fixed wheel centre and

66

"adjustment obtained by a lever and quadrant the back row of tines must be "either deeper or more shallow in the work than the more forward row or rows 10"except at one fixed depth.

15

"A lever j provided with a spring pawl j' operated by a hand lever j2 is fixed 66 on one end of a shaft j3 and said lever is capable of being moved so that its spring pawl may engage with any of the notches in the quadrant h2 fixed to "the frame h.

66

"This lever j has a short arm j* which by a link j4 is connected to a bracket f2 "fixed to the bar f. On the opposite end of the shaft j3 is fixed an arm ** corresponding with the arm j* and said arm j** is connected by a second

66

Harrison Patents Company Ld. v. W. N. Nicholson & Sons Ld.

"link j1 to a second bracket f2 fixed to the bar f. By these means the tines can be set in the required position for work or lifted clear of the ground for "the better convenience of turning, travelling on roads or clearing of rubbish. "If desired the machine may be provided with a seat supported in any con"venient manner on the frame thereby enabling the machine to be better under 5 "the control of one man, I have not however shown a seat in the drawings in "order to avoid confusion, but such can be readily fitted by any competent "mechanic.

"The front of the frame h is shown provided with a swivel wheel 3 but "this may be dispensed with and a pole or shafts may be attached to the 10 "frame h.

"The machine above described has two rows of tines a the carrying blocks b "of which are all secured to the same bar ƒ whilst the distance between the "front and back rows is obtained by giving the back row a greater length of "tine shank than the front row.

15

"I construct the tines a of such shape that the working points of the shares a1 "shall be perpendicularly below the centre x from which the curve of the tine "or working part thereof is struck or thereabouts whereby I obtain a cutting "action in contradistinction to the dragging action produced when the shares "or points of the tines are not continued so far forward. The pattern of the 20 "guide blocks b may be altered from those herein shown and described and they may be secured to the frame by other means than those illustrated.

66

"I do not confine myself to the particular shape of the springs herein shown "and described and I may connect the springs to the frame or to the tines and "guide blocks in any suitable manner other than those herein described and 25 "illustrated.

"I do not limit myself to the use of the shapes or frame herein described and "illustrated such being only shown as a type to which my invention refers but "I may make modifications and adapt my invention to other pattern cultivator, "scarifier, drag harrow or the like."

30

The Patentee claimed:-" 1. In a cultivator the combination of non-yielding "tines, guide blocks having slots therein fitting the shanks of the tines and "springs acting upon the tines in a horizontal direction. 2. In a cultivator "the combination of tines and guide blocks having slots therein deeper at their "front ends than at their rear ends where they fit the tine shanks, substantially 35 66 as herein shown and described. 3. In a cultivator the combination of tines "having the points of their shares perpendicularly below the centre from which "the curve of the working part of the tine is struck or thereabouts, guide "blocks having slots therein deeper at their front ends than at their rear ends "where they fit the tine shanks and springs acting in a horizontal direction on 40 "the tine shanks, substantially as herein described and illustrated in the "accompanying drawings. 4. In a cultivator, the combination of tines having "the points of their shares perpendicularly below the centre from which the "curve of the working part of the tine is struck or thereabouts, guide blocks in "which the tine shanks are capable of horizontal and slightly angular motion, 45 springs acting in a horizontal direction on the tines, means for adjusting the "working depth of the tines and keeping them at all depths in a horizontal "plane, and means for tilting the tines entirely out of the ground when required, "substantially as herein described and illustrated in the accompanying drawings. "5. In a cultivator, the combination of tines, guide blocks having slots deeper 50 "at their front end than at their rear end in which such tines are mounted, "springs acting upon said tines, a bar or bars carrying such guide blocks and "springs, a shaft carried by the machine frame and from which such bar or bars are supported, cranks fixed on the ends of the said shaft, pins on said cranks "on which the carrying wheels are mounted, a hand lever fixed on said shaft 55 "to enable the angle of the cranks, and consequently the working depth of the "tines, to be adjusted, and a notched quadrant to receive the spring pawl and "thereby retain the parts in any required position, substantially as herein set

66

66

66

Harrison Patents Company Ld. v. W. N. Nicholson & Sons Ld.

"forth. 6. In a cultivator, the combination of tines acted upon by springs and capable of short horizontal motion, a bar or frame carrying such tines, a shaft "carried by the machine frame from which such bar or frame is suspended, and "means for enabling the tine bar or frame to be tilted around said shaft to enable 5" the tines to be raised entirely out of the ground or lowered into working "position, substantially as herein described and illustrated in the accompanying "drawings. 7. In-a-cultivator,-the-combination of tines-having-the-points-per"-pendicularly below-the-centre-from which the-eurve-of-the-working-part-of-the "tine-is-struck-or thereabouts-a-bar-or-bars-carrying-such-tines;-a-shaft-eur red

10

"-cranks-fixed-on-the-ends

"by-the-machine-frame-und-from-which-snch-bar-or-bars-is-or-are-supported, "-earrying-wheels-are-mounted,-a-hand-lover-fixed-on-said-shaft-to-enable-the "-angle-of-the-eranks-and-consequently-the-working-depth-of-the-tines,-to-bo 15"-adjusted-at-all-depths-in-a-horizontal-plane,-and-a-notched-quadrant-to "-receive the spring pawl-and-thereby retain the parts in any required-position; "-substantially as herein-set-forth. 7 8. In a cultivator, the combination of "tines having the points of their shares perpendicularly below the centre from "which the curve of the working part of the tine is struck or thereabouts, a bar 20 or frame carrying such tines, a shaft carried by the machine frame and from "which such bar or frame is supported, and means for enabling the tine bar or "frame to be tilted around said shaft to enable the tines to be raised entirely "out of the ground or lowered into working position, and means for enabling "the angle of the cranks by which the said shaft is supported on the carrying "wheels to be varied, substantially as herein shown and described."

of-the-said-shaft;-pins-on-said-cranks-on-which the

25

66

The Plaintiffs commenced an action for infringement of the Patent on the 26th of November 1906 against W. N. Nicholson & Sons Ld., claiming the usual relief.

The Statement of Claim alleged that the Plaintiff, William Edward Martin, 30 was the grantee and registered legal owner of the Patent, and that the Plaintiffs, the Harrison Patents Company Ld., were the sole licensees under the Patent, and that the Defendants had infringed. The usual relief was claimed.

The Particulars of Breaches alleged that :-(1) The Defendants between the granting of the said Letters Patent and the issue of the writ in the action, both 35 prior to and subsequent to the amendment of the Specification thereof, had infringed the Patent-(a) by offering for sale new "Castle" cultivators described and illustrated in their Season List No. 651 of 1905-6, and (b) by selling or supplying for sale to James Coultas, of Grantham, and divers other persons, cultivators constructed in accordance with or in manner only colourably 40 differing from the invention described in the Specification of the Patent and claimed in the seventh claiming clause thereof.

45

The Defendants by their Defence denied infringement, and they alleged that the original Complete Specification of the Patent was not framed in good faith or with reasonable skill or knowledge, and that the Patent was invalid.

66

The Particulars of Objections were as follows:-" (1) The person to whom "the said Letters Patent were granted was not the true and first inventor of "the alleged invention. (2) The alleged invention described in the amended "Complete Specification with reference to the Drawings was not useful. (3) "The amended Specification of the alleged invention does not distinguish what 50 parts of the alleged invention were new and what were old. (4) The amended "Complete Specification of the alleged invention describes and claims an "invention different from and larger than the invention described in the Pro"visional Specification thereof. This objection is founded upon page 1, lines "17 to 19, page 2, lines 9 to 21, and the Drawings of the Provisional Specifica55 tion, and page 3, lines 12 to 14, page 3, line 45, to page 4, line 36, page 4, "line 50, to page 5, line 5, Figures 1 to 6, and 10, 11, 12 of the Drawings, and "Claims 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the amended Complete Specification. (5) Having "regard to the state of common knowledge at the date of the said Letters

66

66

Harrison Patents Company Ld. v. W. N. Nicholson & Sons Ld.

"Patent and to the Specifications and prior users mentioned in paragraphs 6, "7, and 8 hereof, the alleged invention as claimed in all the claiming clauses "of the amended Complete Specification was not proper subject-matter for "valid Letters Patent. (6) The alleged invention was not novel at the date of "the said Letters Patent, having been previously published in the realm by the 5 "publication of the following British Complete Specifications and United States Specifications, the whole being in each case relied on unless otherwise stated "with respect to the Claims of the said amended Complete Specification " mentioned :-(a) Nicholson and Mather (No. 2604 of 1879), page 3, line 31, "to page 4, line 4, and the Drawings are relied on with respect to Claims 4 to 7; 10 "(b) Nicholson and Mather (No. 11,216 of 1884), Claims 4 to 7; (c) Jeffries "and Garrard (No. 16,885 of 1886), Claims 4 to 7; (d) Huxtable (No. 6931 of 1889), Figures 1 and 5 of the Drawings and the letterpress relating thereto "with reference to Claims 3, 4, and 7; (e) Harrison (No. 15,666 of 1891), "Claims 3 to 7; (f) Topham (No. 14,099 of 1893), Claims 3 to 7; (g) Nicholson 15 "and Mather (No. 17,064 of 1895), Claims 3 to 7; (h) Bamford (No. 1450 of "1896), Figures 6 and 9 of the Drawings and the letterpress relating thereto "with reference to Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7; (i) Ransome and Garrard (No. "9744 of 1897), Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7; (j) Carter (U.S.A., No. 231,268 of "1880), Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6; (k) Brown (U.S.A., No. 240,377 of 1881), 20 "Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6; (1) Goettmann (U.S.A., No. 330,108 of 1885), Claims "3, 4, and 7; Stimson (U.S.A., No.-390,812 of 1888), Claims 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6; "(n) Rowell (U.S.A., No. 410,769 of 1889), Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7; (0) Forbes (U.S.A., No. 468,986 of 1892), Claims 3, 4, 5, and 7; (p) Clark (U.S.A., "No. 275,146 of 1883), Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6. (7) The alleged invention as 25 "aforesaid was also published prior to the date of the said Letters Patent in "manner following:-(1) By the manufacture, use, and sale by the Defendants "and their predecessors in business continuously since the year 1892 of horse "rakes known as Parallel Lift Rakes.' (2) By the manufacture, use, and sale "by Messrs. Ransomes, Sims, and Jeffries Ld. and their predecessors in business 30 "continuously since the year 1869 of horse rakes known as 'Star Rakes.' (3) "By the manufacture, use, and sale by the Defendants and their predecessors "in business in and from time to time ever since the year 1879 of cultivators "known as Spring Balance Cultivators.' (8) The Plaintiffs are not, nor are "either of them in law entitled to the exclusive right to make, use, and sell 35 "machines constructed in the manner described in the said amended Complete Specification and claimed in Claims 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 thereof by reason of the "prior grant to Geoffrey Howard and Edward Tenney Bousfield of Letters "Patent No. 21,487 of 1898. The whole Specification of the said Letters Patent "is relied on."

66

66

40

The Specification of Howard and Bousfield's Patent (No. 21,487 of 1898) (the alleged prior grant) described a cultivator in which the height of the frame was regulated by means of eccentric axle blocks, instead of the cranks employed for this purpose in Martin's Specification. The use of eccentric axle blocks enables tines to be mounted outside the road wheels, an arrange- 45 ment not possible where cranked axles are used.

The differences between the Defendants' machine and the patented machine will be found stated in the Judgment.

Walter K.C. and H. A. Colefax (instructed by Routh, Stacey, and Castle, agents for Stapleton & Son, of Stamford) appeared for the Plaintiffs; Bousfield 50 K.C. and W. Neill (instructed by W. C. Broadbridge, agent for Larken & Co., of Newark) appeared for the Defendants,

Walter K.C. for the Plaintiffs.-The Defendants have infringed Claim 7 of the Plaintiffs' Specification. Cultivators must not be confused with hay rakes. The teeth of a hay rake do not enter the ground, nor are they fixed in position; 55 they are kept down solely by gravity. In a cultivator the cutting edges of the tines must be kept at a fixed position. Two movements, at least, are necessary in cultivators fitted with two or more rows of tines; firstly, a movement giving