The jury found that the invention was novel, and the specification sufficient.

Motion for a new trial refused by Lord Romilly, M.R.

Appeal to Giffard, L.J. Appeal allowed (inter alia) on the ground that it was a misdirection to tell the jury that "the claim to each and every part of the actual combination mentioned in the original specification is still preserved," and not to tell them "that all the world had a right to use the combination of the fireplaces and tank and cave, without the hollow sides, and that the addition to them of the hollow sides as described was the subject-matter of a patent."

On appeal to the House of Lords.

Held, that the specification described an invention of a combination of the old things and methods, and constituted a claim for the combination only, which was subject-matter for a patent.

Lord Hatherley, L.C. (at p. 216): "With every new invention, the skill and ingenuity of the inventor are shown in the application of wellknown principles. Few things come to be known now in the shape of new principles, but the object of an invention generally is the applying of wellknown principles to the achievement of a practical result not yet achieved. And, I take it, the test of novelty is this: Is the product which is the result of the apparatus for which an inventor claims Letters Patent effectively obtained by means of your new apparatus, whereas it had never before been effectively obtained by any of the separate portions of the apparatus which you have now combined into one valuable whole for the purpose of effecting the object you have in view ?1. . . This desirable end of avoiding the pots and removing the sieges and getting rid of the difficulties arising therefrom, had not been effectively obtained until this gentleman hit upon this ingenious mode of achieving the object by this invention. It appears to me that there is a fallacy in saying that because you disclaim the invention of these particular things, and you thereby (as the Lord Justice expresses it) throw them all open to the public, that therefore, when you, by means of an ingenious invention, bring all these known ideas into one valuable and useful combination by a certain application of a cooling process, you are only to be credited with the cooling process. The cooling process may be applied to anything else it has been applied to iron and to everything else in the world. Here the cooling process was applied to this combination for a particular purpose and by particular means."

Notes.

Cannington v. Nuttall establishes a principle of law of the highest authority per Lord Halsbury, L.C., in Vickers v. Siddell, 7 R. P. C. 302.

This passage is quoted as authority in Pirrie v. York St. Flax Spinning Co., 10 R. P. C. 37.

1872. MURRAY 7. CLAYTON, L. R. 7 Ch. Ap. 570.

Subject-matter--Anticipation a Failure.

The invention consisted of a machine in which lengths of portions of clay were cut off by means of vertical wires capable of moving to and fro; the lengths of clay thus cut off were then, by a movable platform, pushed against and past fixed wires, which cut the lengths of clay into bricks. The claim was for "the arrangement and construction of parts herein set forth for cutting clay into bricks. I claim particularly cutting the clay into the form of bricks, by forcing the clay forwards, by means of a pushing-board, or otherwise, against a series of fixed wires, so arranged that the clay is pushed or forced past the wires on to a movable board provided with handles, so that twelve or any other convenient number of bricks may be removed at the same time."

An alleged anticipation was set up of a machine constructed on similar lines, but which was a failure, and never came into practical use.

The judge at the trial held that the several means employed and the result were all old, that the specification did not indicate the novelty claimed, and that the patent was consequently invalid.

Held, on appeal,1 that the claim was for the whole machine," which enabled the workman to make the bricks with one turn of a handle, ready to be removed for drying; that the alleged anticipation, being unworkable, could not invalidate the subsequent patent for the entire machine.3

1876. HARRISON V. ANDERSTON FOUNDRY CO., 1 App. Ca. 574; 3 Ct. Sess. (4th Series), 55.

Construction-Combination Claim- "New" and "Old."

A patent was granted (No. 3310 of 1868) to Q. and J. Whyte for "improvements in looms for weaving."

4

The complete specification commenced in the following terms :"Our said invention consists in new or improved simple and most efficient modes of and arrangements of mechanism for actuating the set or sets of 'compound' or 'multiple' shuttle-boxes of looms, for weaving striped, checked, and other ornamental or figured fabrics, requiring two, three, or more shuttle-boxes and shuttle in each set.

1 The Court followed Crane v. Price (ante, p. 195) in holding that this was invention (p. 584); and Kay, L.J., in Lyon v. Goddard, 10 R. P. C. 346, based both cases on the proposition in Crane v. Price, as stated (ante, p. 196).

2 See also Clark v. Adie, L. R. 10 Ch. Ap. 675, where this decision was acted on.

3 This proposition was adopted and followed in Haslam v. Hall, 5 R. P. C. 19, and Lyon v. Goddard, 10 R. P. C. 134.

The italics are introduced by the author, merely to call attention to the more important points.

"Fig. 1 on Sheet 1 of the accompanying two sheets of drawings1 is a side elevation of sufficient of a main side frame and the other parts of a three shuttle box check, and other stripe weaving power loom of an ordinary type or form, otherwise than having a modification or construction and arrangement of the two main parts contained under or forming our said invention, namely, the check shuttle-box moving mechanism (indicated by numbers 1 to 35) and the pattern mechanism for these or other checks or compound shuttle-box mechanism (indicated by numbers 36 to 62) and both shown in general side elevation; Fig. 2 is a back or edge elevation of the latter pattern barrel and mechanism detached, at right angles to Fig. 1, showing more particularly the general arrangement and action of the pattern barrel-pins, the reversing of the catches, and traversing actuating lever of the shuttle-box moving mechanism. While Figs. 3, 4, and 5 are respectively a side and edge elevation and a plan of the main parts to a large scale detached shown in Fig. 2, Fig. 6 is a side elevation of another modification of our improved shuttle-box mechanism from that shown in Fig. I constructed to actuate a four shuttle box and work in connection with a pattern barrel mechanism such as now in use."

The specification continued by giving a detailed account of the mechanism. Besides the six mentioned above, there were three supplemental diagrams [Figs. 6b, 21b, 24b, and 30b] illustrating details corresponding to those numbers in the main diagrams. After the three shuttle box mechanism (Figs. 1 to 5) was described, the following passage occurred :

"Although the new check shuttle-box moving mechanism (numbers 1 to 29) has, so far, been only shown and described as applied to a three shuttle box loom, it is equally applicable for working a four, five, or six shuttle box, and it can be worked with the pattern mechanism of check looms now in use where these are in a good state and of a suitable construction and only the shuttle-box moving mechanism required, and many of the improvements in the pattern mechanism numbers 30 to 62 may be applied to other pattern barrels and mechanism heretofore or now in use for check shuttle-boxes."

The modifications required were then described with reference to Figs. 6 and 66 in detail. With respect to the pattern mechanism, "it is to be understood that other and much simpler pattern mechanism than either of those now in use, herein shown and referred to, might for many small classes of patterns be as simply connected to control or set our improved check-box moving mechanism 1 to 29."

The claims were as follows:

"We do not restrict ourselves to the precise details herein described or delineated, but what we believe to be novel and original, and therefore claim as the invention secured to us by the hereinbefore in part recited Letters Patent is

1 For the present purpose the first two diagrams are sufficient illustration.

"Fig. 1 on Sheet 1 of the accompanying two sheets of drawings1 is a side elevation of sufficient of a main side frame and the other parts of a three shuttle box check, and other stripe weaving power loom of an ordinary type or form, otherwise than having a modification or construction and arrangement of the two main parts contained under or forming our said invention, namely, the check shuttle-box moving mechanism (indicated by numbers 1 to 35) and the pattern mechanism for these or other checks or compound shuttle-box mechanism (indicated by numbers 36 to 62) and both shown in general side elevation; Fig. 2 is a back or edge elevation of the latter pattern barrel and mechanism detached, at right angles to Fig. 1, showing more particularly the general arrangement and action of the pattern barrel-pins, the reversing of the catches, and traversing actuating lever of the shuttle-box moving mechanism. While Figs. 3, 4, and 5 are respectively a side and edge elevation and a plan of the main parts to a large scale detached shown in Fig. 2, Fig. 6 is a side elevation of another modification of our improved shuttle-box mechanism from that shown in Fig. I constructed to actuate a four shuttle box and work in connection with a pattern barrel mechanism such as now in use."

The specification continued by giving a detailed account of the mechanism. Besides the six mentioned above, there were three supplemental diagrams [Figs. 6b, 21b, 24b, and 30b] illustrating details corresponding to those numbers in the main diagrams. After the three shuttle box mechanism (Figs. 1 to 5) was described, the following passage occurred :

"Although the new check shuttle-box moving mechanism (numbers 1 to 29) has, so far, been only shown and described as applied to a three shuttle box loom, it is equally applicable for working a four, five, or six shuttle box, and it can be worked with the pattern mechanism of check looms now in use where these are in a good state and of a suitable construction and only the shuttle-box moving mechanism required, and many of the improvements in the pattern mechanism numbers 30 to 62 may be applied to other pattern barrels and mechanism heretofore or now in use for check shuttle-boxes."

The modifications required were then described with reference to Figs. 6 and 66 in detail. With respect to the pattern mechanism, “it is to be understood that other and much simpler pattern mechanism than either of those now in use, herein shown and referred to, might for many small classes of patterns be as simply connected to control or set our improved check-box moving mechanism 1 to 29."

The claims were as follows:

"We do not restrict ourselves to the precise details herein described or delineated, but what we believe to be novel and original, and therefore claim as the invention secured to us by the hereinbefore in part recited Letters Patent is

For the present purpose the first two diagrams are sufficient illustration.