the slots b3, b', of the drop movement b, by the diagonal inclines of the slot ƒ in the pusher-tube e. g is a stud working in the slot for determining the vertical movement of the inclines in locking and releasing the movement when it is required for it to be sheathed or projected."

The action is as follows:-The pusher-tube forces the pin out of the slot as in the former case (Figs. 20, 21), then the drop movement drops, the pin remaining stationary, and the slots allowing the drop movement to fall. The spring returning the pusher-tube c to its original position (Fig. 22), forces the pin into the top locking-slot bз.

The claims were

"First, the improvements in pen and pencil cases and other holders for like instruments and materials hereinbefore described and illustrated in Figs. 1 to 31, both inclusive of the accompanying drawings; that is to say, fixing and releasing drop movements containing the writing material or other instrument, by the direct vertical movement or thrust of the inclined sides of a diagonal or helical slot or slots constituting locking and releasing inclines, which act alternately upon a pin, which holds the movement locked when sheathed or projected, and releases the movement when change of position is required, by acting directly upon a pin or projection which is carried by, or engages with, the movement; the inclines and pin and other parts for guiding, locking, and releasing being arranged, combined, and acting in the ways and for the purpose as described and set forth."

The second claim was for the bow-shaped modification as shown in Figs. 12 to 15; and the third claim was for a form in which the tubes were fluted or ridged to diminish friction.

The patent was upheld at the trial.

On appeal it was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

The Lords Justices held that although the third mode of carrying out the invention was different from those described in the provisional specification, yet the whole came within the invention, the nature of which was described in the provisional.'

Cotton, L.J. (at p. 175): "It is true that in his provisional specification he has stated a different mode of carrying his invention into effect from that which he stated in sheet 3 of his complete specification; but if both are really within the same invention, described though not minutely but in general terms in the provisional specification, then the patent will not be bad simply because a different mode of carrying the same invention into operation is described in the complete specification, and even although that may be an improvement on what is described in the provisiona specification, because a patentee putting in a provisional specification showing the nature of his invention is not bound to describe the way in which that can be carried into effect and operation, but if he does describe

1 The facts of this case were alluded to and the decision followed by Cotton, L.J., and Lopes, L.J., in Siddell v. Vickers, 5 R. P. C. 425, 433; and also in Hookham v. Johnson 14 R. P. C. 561.

a way of doing it, and before he files his complete specification he either finds out improvements in that way or a different way of carrying into effect that which is described as his invention in the provisional specification, he is bound to give the public the benefit of what he has discovered as regards the mode of carrying the invention, the nature of which must be described in the provisional specification, into effect, even although there may be improvement and even invention which was not known to him at the time." 1

1887. PROCTOR v. BENNIS, 4 R. P. C. 333.

Construction-Mechanical Equivalents.

A patent was granted (No. 2047 of 1875) to T. Proctor for "an improved self-acting apparatus for supplying fuel to boiler and other furnaces." The complete specification commenced with the following description of the nature and object of the invention as follows :—

"This invention has for its object improved and self-acting mechanism for supplying to and distributing fuel at intervals over the fire surface.

Diagrams from Proctor's specification (No. 2047 of 1875).

"The construction and action of the apparatus is as follows :-I employ an ordinary feed-hopper,2 A, applied to the front of the boiler, which by

1 This rule has been quoted with approval and followed in Moseley v. Victoria Rubber Co., 4 R. P. C. 248; Gadd v. Mayor of Manchester, 9 R. P. C. 260 (and in C. A. by Smith, L.J., 9 R. P. C. 529); Brooks v. Lamplugh, 14 R. P. C. 617; and The Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Leicester Pneumatic, &c., Co., 15 R. P. C. 164; and Ward Bros. v. Hill, 20 R. P. C. 200.

2 The references to the diagrams are here inserted instead of reproducing the detailed description of the drawings. Only those drawings necessary to understand the case are given. Fig. 1 is a front elevation, and Fig. 3 a side view. The remaining figures (2, 4-10) showed an end view and parts in detail.

X

means of spiked or other rollers, BB, will give a supply of fuel, the fuel is received upon an inclined door or flap, D, working within guide-plates, the door or flap is secured to cross-shafts, EE, to which by means of lever F and tappets GG a partial turn or rotary motion is given, drawing back the door or flap until the tappet G shall have passed its throw-whereon the partial rotation of the shaft E is suddenly reversed by means of a coiled spring, H, or weight applied thereto-by such reversing action, the door or flap attached to the shaft E receives a rapid forward movement in the direction of the furnace bars, throwing and distributing the fuel over a portion of the fire. The tappet is provided with two or more varying throws, so that the spring will be coiled more or less as the fuel is to be alternately thrown on to the fire surface at the front, midway, or back of the fire surface. The tappet shaft JJ receives motion from a worm, KK, and worm-wheel K'K'."

The specification continued with a detailed description of the drawings, and concluded with the following claim :

"I lay no claim to the hopper A, nor to the spiked rollers, nor to the shafts and worms for operating the same, but what I do claim is the employment of the tappets GG, and shafts EE, and springs H, when applied to and in connection with the doors DD, as and for the purpose herein fully described and illustrated."

This was an action for infringement of this patent.

The infringement was alleged to be a development of an earlier invention of the defendant's. Its nature can be understood from the drawings.' The mode of action of the parts in contact with the coal are shown in

Photographs of models of Proctor's flap or door, Bennis' older pusher, and the alleged

infringement.

section; on the left is the plaintiff's door in sectional elevation; in the centre is the old pusher mechanism which operated intermittently and moved rectilinearly; on the right the defendant's pusher is shown in elevation. The last consisted of a bent arm, C, having a flat piece or pusher, M, at the end of it. The motion of the latter was radial, the fulcrum,

1 For original photographs of the models used as exhibits and shorthand report of the case the author is indebted to Messrs. Procter & Son, the plaintiff's solicitors.

P, being the shaft above, and the motion as regards the fulcrum was geometrically the same as that of the lower end of the plaintiff's door as regards its own shaft. In the plaintiff's case the intermittent actuating mechanism was outside connected with the

shaft; in the defendant's it was inside, and connected with the notch on the arm C. This is shown in the last diagram, in which D is a shaft to which cams, Q, are attached. The arm C and shovel M are pressed forward by the springs F and G. When D revolves the cams, Q, press back the arm until they pass the notch, when the arm and shovel spring forwards again, the shovel throwing the coals on the fire.

The main feature in the defence was that the defendant's pusher was mounted on a pin to act as a buffer; that the plaintiff's claim was for the combination as a whole, and that the entirely different.

defendant's was

The learned Vice-Chancellor of the Palatine Court held, inter alia, that the patent was valid,

and had been infringed.

P

Section of defendant's pusher.

On appeal, held, by the Court of Appeal, inter alia, that the patent was valid, and that the defendant had taken the essence of the combination.

Cotton, L.J., considered the nature of the claim to be one for a combination. After dealing with the question of novelty and allegation that the novelty of parts was not pointed out, he continued:“Now I have referred to that so as to show that I have not omitted the argument. In my opinion, it is of necessity, without that observation and this expression of opinion by Lord Cairns, that where a combination is claimed to be an invention, if that invention is new, it is immaterial on the question of the validity of the specification, and the goodness of the patent, that the patentee should point out how far he does or does not claim particular portions. Of course, if the alleged infringement had been a subsidiary portion of this combination, or had been particular parts of machinery which formed the combination as a whole, that would have been material, but when I read the claim it will appear that the plaintiff does cut himself down entirely to the combination, pointing out that he does not claim the particular portions of that, but simply claims the

means of spiked or other rollers, BB, will give a supply of fuel, the fuel is received upon an inclined door or flap, D, working within guide-plates, the door or flap is secured to cross-shafts, EE, to which by means of lever F and tappets GG a partial turn or rotary motion is given, drawing back the door or flap until the tappet G shall have passed its throw-whereon the partial rotation of the shaft E is suddenly reversed by means of a coiled spring, H, or weight applied thereto-by such reversing action, the door or flap attached to the shaft E receives a rapid forward movement in the direction of the furnace bars, throwing and distributing the fuel over a portion of the fire. The tappet is provided with two or more varying throws, so that the spring will be coiled more or less as the fuel is to be alternately thrown on to the fire surface at the front, midway, or back of the fire surface. The tappet shaft JJ receives motion from a worm, KK, and worm-wheel K'K'."

The specification continued with a detailed description of the drawings, and concluded with the following claim :

"I lay no claim to the hopper A, nor to the spiked rollers, nor to the shafts and worms for operating the same, but what I do claim is the employment of the tappets GG, and shafts EE, and springs H, when applied to and in connection with the doors DD, as and for the purpose herein fully described and illustrated."

This was an action for infringement of this patent.

The infringement was alleged to be a development of an earlier invention of the defendant's. Its nature can be understood from the drawings.1 The mode of action of the parts in contact with the coal are shown in

Photographs of models of Proctor's flap or door, Bennis' older pusher, and the alleged

infringement.

section; on the left is the plaintiff's door in sectional elevation; in the centre is the old pusher mechanism which operated intermittently and moved rectilinearly; on the right the defendant's pusher is shown in elevation. The last consisted of a bent arm, C, having a flat piece or pusher, M, at the end of it. The motion of the latter was radial, the fulcrum, 1 For original photographs of the models used as exhibits and shorthand report of the case the author is indebted to Messrs. Procter & Son, the plaintiff's solicitors.