"In carrying my invention into effect, I establish in the electric circuit employed a number of induction coils corresponding to the number of lamps to be employed, the terminals of each inner coil being connected to the said circuit, while the terminals of the outer coil are situated on each side of the slab of kaolin of the lamp. . . .” "In cases where continuous electric currents are employed the induction coils are provided with interruptors and condensers, either one to each or one to a number of coils. In the case of alternating currents the interruptors and condensers are dispensed with." Another advantage in the use of induction coils lay in the power to extinguish one lamp without extinguishing all. Publications were proved describing Jablochkoff's system; in these the Ruhmkorff coil was mentioned. It was well known and constructed with iron wire or split cores. Other publications showed that for the purpose of transmitting electric energy it was known that it was economical to use transformers to change the current to one of high tension, and to change it again to one of low tension at the place where it was to be applied. It was also proved that, until the Edison & Swan lamps were made, there was no occasion to use the electric current for lighting purposes at a comparatively low tension; hence no demand for a "step down" system. It was contended that the patentee had invented the combination of the three elements, (1) an alternating dynamo supplying the main wire, (2) a current in that wire of high tension, and (3) a secondary generator such as described. The patent was declared invalid by Kekewich, J., on the ground that the inventor had merely indicated the best method of using known tools (5) R. P. C. 525). Held, by the Court of Appeal, that the invention was new and useful, but by amendment the monopoly claimed had been extended, and that the patent was bad on the latter ground (6 R. P. C. 215). Held, by the House of Lords (not agreeing with the Court of Appeal as to disconformity), that the patent was bad for want of subject-matter, the combination consisting merely in putting well-known machines together in a manner that involved no invention.1 1891. LONGBOTTOM 7. SHAW, 8 R. P. C. 333. Analogous Use-Want of Inventive Ingenuity. A patent was granted (No. 2695 of 1886) to C. Longbottom for "improvements in reels or frames for holding pile and other fabrics." The specification described a new method of forming and attaching 1 In Rucker v. London Electric Supply Corporation, 17 R. P. C. 294, Farwell, J., referred to this case as a useful illustration of the application of the principles upon which the Court acts in construing specifications. hooks to the arms of the reels. Fig. 1 shows hooks, cast or stamped, secured to the arm of the reel by rivets through the holes B. Fig. 2 shows another method in which the strip of metal is stamped out and the hooks (Fig. 3) soldered into the transverse grooves C. When complete this is secured to the arm of the reel as above described. The claims were: "(1) The combination, with FIG.I. OB FIG. 2. FIC.3. a reel or frame for holding pile Diagrams of Longbottom's specification (No. 2695 or other fabrics, of a row of hooks formed of cast metal, substantially as herein shown and described. of 1886). "(2) The combination, with a reel or frame for holding pile or other fabrics, of a row of hooks stamped from sheet metal, substantially as herein. shown and described. "(3) The combination, with a reel or frame for holding pile or other fabrics, of a row of hooks formed by attaching hooks to a suitable foundation adapted to be secured to the arms of the reel or frame, substantially as herein shown and described. "(4) In a reel or frame for holding pile or other fabrics, the novel method of attaching the hooks, substantially as herein shown and described." At the date of the patent the use of a row of hooks in the plane of the reel or frame was well known, the hooks being separately attached to the frame by rivets. Rows of hooks fastened in planes at right angles to the strip or lath of metal to which they were attached, so that the whole could be used by attaching the metal where required, were known, but for other purposes, such as hanging goods up, &c. There was an improvement in the alleged invention, the new articles being largely sold in preferenceto the older kinds. Held, by the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal, and the House of Lords, that the application of old things, as shown above, to reels. for pile fabrics, although an improvement, did not require experiment or possess sufficient ingenuity to support a patent. Note. This case is a good example of want of subject-matter. Per Smith, L.J.,. in Brooks v. Lamplugh, 15 R. P. C. 48. 1891. NUTTALL v. HARGREAVES, 8 R. P. C. 450. Disconformity-No Invention in Provisional. A patent (No. 5059 of 1880) was granted to F. Nuttall for "an improved method of tapping barrels containing beer, porter, or other liquids, and preventing waste and leakage of said liquids during tapping." The provisional specification was as follows: b "This invention consists of an improved method of tapping barrels containing beer, porter, or other liquids, and for preventing waste and leakage of said liquids during tapping, by means of a screwed bush or plug, a, secured to the barrel-end b; the bush also carries a guide for the valve and spring d, the valve being kept on the seating e in the bush by means of the spring d, and preventing the liquid from escaping. f 6 h FIC.I. From Nuttall's provisional specification. "To tap the barrel I use a tap, f, screwed to suit the bush a, the tap being provided with holes as shown at g (Figs. 1 and 2).' The tap is screwed into the bush until it forces the valve c from its seating (Fig. 2); the liquid then escapes through the holes g in the tap. The said tap is arranged so that it is screwed in the bush a a short distance (Fig. 1) before coming in contact with the valve, so as to prevent leakage through the bush before opening the valve. "When the tap is removed or unscrewed from the bush the spring d presses the valve back to its seating before the threaded part of the tap leaves the bush. "I also provide the tap with a centre point, h, to engage in a corresponding recess in the valve as shown, to ensure easy and direct opening of the valve with little friction and without damaging the face of the valve." The complete specification gave a more detailed description of the invention as shown in Figs. 1 and 2 below. The action of the tap was thus described : "To tap the barrel I use a tap, ƒ, screwed to suit the bush a, the tap being provided with a hole or holes as shown at g, the tap is screwed into the bush until it forces the valve from its seat, the liquid then escapes through the holes g in the tap, the tap is arranged so that it is screwed into the bush a short distance before it commences to open the valve, so as to prevent 1 It is unnecessary to reproduce Fig. 2, which was the same as Fig. 1, but showing the tap in position when screwed home, the spring d being compressed. leakage through the bush before the valve is opened, the tap is also provided with a leather or rubber collar, i; the face of the valve may also be provided with a similar facing of leather or other material; the valve casing or projections j are encircled by a gauze or strainer, k, to prevent hops or impurities b Fig 2 From Nuttall's complete specification (No. 5059 of 1880). escaping through the tap. When the tap is removed or unscrewed from the bush the spring d presses the valve back to its seat before the threaded part of the tap leaves the bush. Figs. 1 and 2 show the arrangement secured to the barrel end on the inside." Other modifications were then described by diagrams, and the claim was for : : "A method of plugging or securing the outlet of barrel by means of an arrangement of bush or valve casing with valve and spring secured to barrel end in connection with a tap as shown, and for the purpose as hereinbefore set forth and more particularly described in specification and drawings." It was proved at the trial that the invention of the tap described in the provisional specification had neither novelty nor utility. The patentee thought it was original. It was also shown that the utility and novelty of the complete invention lay in the use of the strainer k,j, described in Figs. 1 and 2 of the complete specification. It was argued for the plaintiff that the strainer was a mere adjunct and improvement in carrying out the invention (Newall v. Elliott, ante, p. 201). At the trial the learned judge held that the alleged invention was neither novel nor subject matter for a patent (8 R. P. C. 273). The plaintiff appealed. Held, assuming that the claim was for a combination of strainer, bush and guide-valve, and screw-tap, the element of the strainer was not included in the provisional specification; the patent was therefore invalid. The objection of "disconformity" between provisional and complete specifications may be taken since the Act of 1883. Notes. In this case previous decisions were reviewed; the patentee need not describe details in the provisional specification: Lane Fox v. Kensington, &c., 9 R. P. C. 238. Nuttall v. Hargreaves shows that if the invention described in the two specifications be not the same, the patent is invalid: Gadd v. Mayor of Manchester, 9 R. C. P. 259. The real invention (the strainer) was not made at the date of the provisional specification, which described a tap that was neither new nor useful. Per Lindley, L.J., S. C. 9 R. P. C. 527. 297. Nuttall v. Hargreaves was also followed in Pether v. Shaw, 10 R. P. C. 1892. THE WENHAM GAS Co., LTD. v. THE CHAMPION Gas Co., 9 R. P. C. 49. Novelty-Subject-matter-Construction. A patent (No. 2869** of 1881) was granted to F. W. Clark for “improvements in railway-carriage, street, and other gas lamps." The specification commenced with a general description of the invention, and was illustrated by diagrams. In all of these the only kind of lamp shown was that in which the flame was beneath the supply-pipe, and the light was cast downwards. One modification of the lamp is shown in Figs. 5 and 6, Fig. 6 being a horizontal section through AB of Fig. 5, showing the three tops of the air inlet pipes alternating with three openings for the escape of the products of combustion up the chimney. It is thus described 1: "In Figs. 5 and 6 of the drawing I have shown the arrangement of lamp I prefer to adopt when the inner concentric tube serves for the air inlet, a lamp of this construction being specially suitable for use as a street-lamp. "a is the lamp body; b, the glass; c, the cover; d and e, the concentric tubes; g, the reflector; h, the chamber formed by the lamp body a and the outer tube e; i, cover to same; j,j, air inlets; k, k, the air inlets in the outer tube e; u, is the gas supply-pipe which I use in this arrangement instead of a coil as hereinbefore described; between the inner tubed and the gas-pipe u I provide an additional pipe, d1, the space between the two tubes forming the chimney; and the space between the tube d1 and the gas-pipe u forming the heated air-chamber corresponding with the chamber ƒ, in the arrangement hereinbefore described and shown in Figs. 1 to 4. In this arrangement a ring, or circular burner of the kind shown in the drawing and 1 The specification is here shown as amended without distinguishing the amendments. |