method of soldering and capping was devised. The nature of the invention will be (for the present purpose) sufficiently apparent from the following diagrams :

Figs. 1 and 2, elevation and side view of a garter.

Figs. 19 and 20, end of a braided wire spring with metal caps.

Fig. 28, perches for bird-cages.

Figs. 38 and 39, satchet handles with ends K3 enclosed in metal. Figs. 40 and 41, longitudinal sections of ends of these with and without rings.

A number of other applications of the braided wire were shown, but those here reproduced were most like the plaintiff's.

Lake's patent (1884) was for "improvements in and relating to pillows, cushions, or similar articles." The nature of the invention will be seen from the drawings here given. Fig. 1 is the pillow, of which Fig. 2 is a

cross-section. The wire, preferably steel, was braided or plaited in the form of a tubular section, either circular, oval, or elliptical-preferably made tapering at the ends. The wires were secured to rings at the ends, which were secured by rods or cords.

At the trial other previous uses of braided wire were proved. It was then held that the patentee's purpose was merely one analogous to that of Jenkins' invention, and that there was not sufficient ingenuity in the mode of clamping the wires to support a patent.

The Court of Appeal reversed that decision on both grounds (5 R. P. C. 113).

On appeal to the House of Lords.

Held, that the patent was one for two combinations or forms of bustles shown in Figs. 1 and 2, and that there was sufficient ingenuity exhibited in the application of old braided wire to that new purpose to support the patent.

Notes.

The foregoing case has been regarded as an illustration of an invention just more than the "mere adaptation" of an old thing to a new use: Morgan v. Windover, 7 R. P. C. 136. The application of the rule involves a correct estimate of the degree of ingenuity required to constitute a patentable "invention": Gadd v. Mayor of Manchester (per Lindley, L.J.), 9 R. P. C. 524.

The thing invented was a new article; that was the ground of the decision: 1 per Lord Herschell, in Vickers v. Siddell, 7 R. P. C. 302. The invention lay in the combination of the "clamping " and the tubular braided wire in the bustle Thierry v. Rickmann (Charles, J.), 12 R. P. C. 427. Novelty and utility, however, in this case had been proved: Savage v. Harris (per Chitty, J.), 13 R. P. C. 94.

1890. MORGAN v. WINDOVER, 7 R. P. C. 131.

Analogous Use-No Inventive Ingenuity.

A patent (No. 4216 of 1876) was granted to G. H. Morgan for "improvements in carriages." The specification described the invention in detail. It consisted in placing the C-springs, formerly used at the back of a carriage in the front, in such a manner that the turning of the carriage was not interfered with. The claims were: "first, the mode herein described of supporting the front of a carriage by C-s prings having their lower parts fixed to the axle and their bows connected by links or loops to bearings fixed to the bottom bed of the under carriage, substantially as and for the purposes herein shown and described; and secondly, I claim giving support to the tails of the front C-springs by connecting them to a cross-spring fixed at its centre to a stay or stays fixed to the framing pieces of the bottom bed in manner and for the purposes substantially as herein shown and described."

It was proved at the trial that these improvements consisted essentially in putting a known form of spring, which had before been used at the back of carriages, on the front. It was also proved that if a competent workman were told to substitute a composite for an elliptical spring upon the fore axle, he could carry out the order without further instructions.2 invention was useful, and a commercial success.

At the trial, and by the Court of Appeal, the patent was held valid.
On appeal to the House of Lords.

The

Held, that there was no subject-matter to support a patent, as the inventive faculty was not displayed in adapting known springs to a new position in front of the vehicle.

Notes.

The patentee did not claim the combination of the springs at the back with those at the front, but only the mode of securing them to the front of the carriage, in which operation no invention was displayed; there being no ingenuity in that, there was an end to the case: Lyon v. Goddard, 10 R. P. C. 344 (per Lord Esher, M.R.), 345 (per Bowen, L.J.); S. C. II R. P. C. 357 (per Lord Halsbury, L.C.).

1 According to the view submitted in this book (ante, pp. 6-13), a new article is a new "manufacture."

2 This was the crucial evidence in the case (see ante, pp. 35, 37).

Invention is a question of fact and degree; in the above case none was shown: Pirrie v. York St., &c., II R. P. C. 448, 456; Brooks v. Lamplugh, 14 R. P. C. 615.

It is not the advantage gained, but the substantial amount of invention shown, that can alone decide whether there is sufficient "subject-matter." Per Rigby, L.J., in Castner-Kellner Alkali Corporation v. Commercial Development Corporation,16 R. P. C. 268.

As to utility or advantages being evidence of invention, see ante, p. 38.

1890. VICKERS 7. SIDDELL, 7 R. P. C. 292.

Disconformity-Inventive Ingenuity—Combination.

In 1885 a patent (No. 6205) was granted to G. Siddell for "an improved mechanical appliance for working or operating on large forgings in iron or steel."

The provisional specification was in the following terms:

"This invention relates to the construction and application of an improved and more simple and effective mechanical appliance or means for working or operating on large forgings in iron or steel, being such forgings as are usually made under a hydraulic forging-press or machine.

"My improved appliance consists of a horizontal bar or bars made of suitable metal and fitted with suitable pulleys and hooks, which bar or bars can be placed or fitted on either side of the crosshead of the forging-press, or through the 'pellet' or key-way.

"Clips or grips or ratchets are conveniently arranged so as to fix on or hold the ingot or forging and hooked on the ratchet or clip or grip; and in operating, when the press lifts up or is raised, the ingot or forging will be turned as much as required at every stroke or operation of the press.

"The crank bar of the press in connection with the wheel and endless chain thereof will raise the forging from the anvil at the same time that the clip or grip or the ratchet is turning the forging, the ratchet being suitably fixed for turning the crane-wheel over which the endless chain passes.

"The ratchet has a chain attached to the crane girder, which will travel along a horizontal bar suitably fixed for the purpose, and will turn over the ingot or forging in the furnace."

The complete specification described the invention by the aid of diagrams. For the present purpose the following is sufficient. In Fig. 2, G is an endless chain passing over the wheel W and under the forging F, on which it was to operate. In one modification the wheel W turned on an axle attached to the crosshead K of the press (shown side view in Figs. 3 and 7). The single or double lever L worked on the same axle. In another form the axle of the wheel W was suspended by the cranehook, &c., ab, as shown in Fig. 1. A ratchet, R, engaged in internal

1 These here given are in part and condensed.

cogs in the wheel W. When the press rose the weight of F came wholly or in part on the chain G, straightening it, thereby actuating the lever L and turning the wheel W. Instead of this automatic action, external force might be applied to the loop E, and the lever so actuated independently of the endless chain G. Another form of appliance was shown in Figs. 4 and 5, the arrangement or grip Xe being hung by the hook H from the wheel d, running on a bar, B, of the crosshead. When the latter rose the "tongs" X gripped the forging F, and so turned it a corresponding amount. The arrangements could be used separately or combined (as shown in Figs. 4 and 7), and might be attached to a movable crane.

The claim was for "the general construction, adaptation or application, and the combination and use of the several parts, in the whole, constituting improved more simple and efficient appliances or means for working or

Drawing of a part of the Abouchoff

crane.

operating on iron or steel forgings, substantially as hereinbefore set forth, and as illustrated on the accompanying drawings."

In an action for infringement of the above patent against Messrs. Vickers, it was contended, inter alia, for the defendants that the patent was invalid upon the following grounds :

(1) That there was disconformity between the complete and provisional specifications, inasmuch as the provisional related only to automatic turning of the forgings.

(2) That the supposed automatic action by stretching the chain was useless.

(3) That there was no subject-matter for a patent; and

(4) That the invention had been anticipated by prior appliances.

The alleged anticipations consisted of a specification of Sir J. Whitworth (No. 3064 of 1874), and descriptions of machines used at the Abouchoff and Creuzot works.

The device employed by Sir J. Whitworth was for the purpose of turning a mandril, not the forging itself, and consisted in a ratchet-wheel fixed to the mandril, and engaging with a pawl on a lever worked by a hydraulic ram. The ram could be raised either by hand or by a self acting motion.

The Abouchoff" machine was described in Engineering, Jan. 25, 1878 (Vol. 25, p. 64). The whole drawing showed a sixty-ton steam