gasholder, in such manner that when one point thereof tends to rise or fall, the same tendency is transmitted, through such gearing, round the circle to every other point." Figs. 1 and 2 show a plan and elevation of one method of carrying out the invention, in which the spur-wheels and their shafts are attached to the holder and the rack. When one pair of wheels tend to turn in their rack by reason of the gasholder rising at that point, this tendency is transmitted to the wheels on either side by the shafts, and thence by the rack to the next, and so on. A horizontal position for the gasholder is thus ensured. Other diagrams showed modifications of the same principle of torsional gearing. Figs. 15 and 16 (plan and elevation) show another method of effecting the desired object by means of tensional gearing. Chains or ropes are attached at certain points, e, to the outside of the bottom of the gasholder; these pass over and under wheels fixed to the side of the tank, as shown in Fig. 16. When one point of attachment tends to rise or fall, it creates a corresponding tension in the rope or chain, which is transmitted over the wheels to the next points of attachment on either side round the gasholder. Other modifications of the tensional gearing were shown. The claims were for : "(1) The employment of torsional gearing arranged round a gasholder or gasholder tank, which gearing connects or gears together points upon and at intervals around such holder, so that one point moving upwards or downwards communicates through such gearing the tendency of motion to the other points round the holder, for the purpose and in manner substantially as herein showed and described. "(2) The employment of tensional gearing arranged round a gasholder or gasholder tank, which gearing connects or gears together points upon and at intervals around such holder, so that one point moving upwards or downwards communicates through such gearing the tendency of motion to the other points round the holder, for the purpose and in manner substantially as herein shown and described. "(3) The employment of torsional and tensional gearing combined, arranged round a gasholder or gasholder tank, which gearing connects or gears together points upon and at intervals around such holder, so that one point moving upwards or downwards communicates through such gearing the tendency of motion to the other points round the holder, for the purpose and in manner substantially as herein shown and described." In an action for infringement of the above patent the principal defence relied on was that the patent was invalid by reason of— (1) Disconformity, because the invention of torsional gearing in the complete specification was not disclosed in the provisional. (2) There being no subject-matter, considering the prior publications in the specifications of Wild (1850) and Standfield (1883). (3) The invention had been published by being disclosed by a rival inventor to sundry persons. Technical and contradictory evidence was called as to what would be understood by the term "gearing" by mechanicians. Wild's specification (13226 of 1850) related to floating caisson docks. It worked on the same rack and pinion principle as the plaintiffs'. It disclosed a method of preserving a horizontal position by means of cog-wheels on the top and bottom of the rectangular caisson, geared together by shaft, passing along its two inside sides, and these worked in racks fixed in the dock. But the structure never rose above the level of the dock, nor was it kept level by being held externally at the base only. Standfield's invention (5889 of 1883) was for a similar purpose, viz. keeping floating structures level. Amongst other devices it disclosed the torsional method of keeping the pontoon level in the following terms:"Fig. 21 shows a mode of maintaining the horizontality of any platform, A FIG. 21 E From Standfield's specification. Α beam, or frame A A', which practically pass up and down only in a horizontal position, however it is weighted with respect to the raising power." Neither of these inventions were shown to have been actually used; nor did either of them refer to gasholders. Evidence was given of the difference between the forces to be considered in floating structures (the upward pressure of water due to displacement) and gasholders (the expansive force of the gas and external wind-pressure). It was also proved that a rival inventor had disclosed the same invention to several persons, some in his employment, others engineers and managers of gasworks. But all these communications were made confidentially and for the purpose of obtaining assistance and advice. Held at the trial that the patent was invalid on the ground of disconformity between the complete and provisional specification (9 R. P. C. 249.) Held, by the Court of Appeal That there was no disconformity. That sufficient ingenuity was shown in applying the principles known in relation to floating structures to gasholders to support the patent. That there was no "prior publication" by the rival inventor. Per Lindley, L.J. (at p. 524): "These cases,1 and many others which 1 Brook v. Aston, 8 E. & B. 478; 5 Jur. N.S. 1025; Harwood v. G. N. Ry. Co., 11 H. L. Ca. 654; Morgan v. Windover, 7 R. P. C. 131. Also Penn v. Bibby, 2 Ch. Ap. 127; might be cited, establish the following propositions applicable to the present case, viz.: (1) A patent for the mere new use of a known contrivance, without any additional ingenuity in overcoming fresh difficulties, is bad, and cannot be supported. If the new use involves no ingenuity, but is in manner and purpose analogous to the old use, although not quite the same, there is no invention; no manner of 'new manufacture' within the meaning of the statute of James. (2) On the other hand, a patent for a new use of a known contrivance is good, and can be supported if the new use involves practical difficulties which the patentee has been the first to see and overcome by some ingenuity of his own. An improved thing produced by a new and ingenious application of a known contrivance to an old thing is a manner of new manufacture within the statute. . . . "The difficulty of saying where invention sufficient to support a patent exists and where it does not, is well known to all persons conversant with patent law. . . . If, practically speaking, there are no difficulties to be overcome in adapting an old contrivance to a new purpose, there can be no ingenuity in overcoming them, there will be no invention, and the first rule will apply. The same rule will, I apprehend, also apply to cases in which the mode of overcoming the so-called difficulties is so obvious to every one of ordinary intelligence and acquaintance with the subject-matter of the patent as to present no difficulty to any such person. Such cases present no real difficulty to people conversant with the matter in hand and admit of no sufficient ingenuity to support a patent. If in these two classes of cases patents could be supported, they would be intolerable nuisances, and would seriously impede all improvements in the practical application of common knowledge. . . . The plaintiffs have made a new and useful thing, viz. an improved gasholder, and however obvious their invention may now seem, it was not at all obvious until they hit upon it." 1 As to disconformity (at p. 526): "This part of the case turns entirely on the view taken of the nature of the plaintiffs' invention. My view is that they sought and obtained protection for an invention for keeping the bottoms of gasholders horizontal without the use of an external framework, but instead thereof by mechanical means such as are described in the provisional specification. But the plaintiffs were not tied to those particular means. A patentee is not prevented from improving the means of carrying out the invention for which he obtains provisional protection. . . . The only limit set to what he can do in this respect is that the invention, as finally specified, must not be a different invention from that provisionally protected." 2 Cannington v. Nuttall, L. R. 5 H. L. 205; Otto v. Linford, 46 L. T. 35; and Hayward v. Hamilton, Griff. 115. 1 The judgment of Lindley, L.J., is frequently quoted as to the difficulty of deciding as to subject-matter: Savage v. Harris, 13 R. P. C. 93. The application of the above rules is always a question of fact and degree: Brooks v. Lamplugh, 14 R. P. C. 615. Practical difficulties must be overcome: Rockliffe v. Priestman, 15 R. P. C. 159; Beavis v. Rylands, Glass Co., 17 R. P. C. 98. 2 Quoted to show that inventions must be unmistakably different to constitute disconformity in Chadburn v. Mechan, 12 R. P. C. 135. Per Smith, L.J. (at p. 529): “The Patent Act of 1883, s. 5, enacts that the patentee 'must describe in his provisional specification the nature of his invention.' This does not mean that he must give a full description of his invention, but he must describe its nature so that the law officers may be informed of its subject-matter, and the identity between it and the complete may be capable of being ascertained. . . . In considering the question of non-conformity,' it becomes necessary to apprehend clearly what the plaintiffs' invention really is, for until this is done, it is impossible to ascertain if a new and separate invention, or only an improvement upon or different mode or modes of carrying out and developing the original invention, are set forth in the complete specification. In the first case the patent is bad. In the second it is not.”1 Note. At p. 532 the rule as to paper anticipations is again restated by Smith, L.J., and was followed in Shrewsbury & Talbot Cab. Co. v. Sterckx, 13 R. P. C. 53; Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Leicester, &c., 16 R. P. C. 57. 1894. BENNO JAFFE UND DARMSTADTER LANOLIN FABRIK V. JOHN RICHARDSON & Co., LTD., 11 R. P. C. 262. Construction of Claim-Manufacturing Equivalent-New Process. A patent (No. 4992 of 1882) was granted to F. C. Glaser for "a new or improved manufacture of fatty matter from wool-fat." The specification described the invention as follows: "This invention relates to a new or improved manufacture of fatty matter from wool-fat termed 'lanolin,' which may be produced either from the waste liquors of wool-washing works or from ordinary commercial woolfat." Lanolin was described as a combination of pure wool-fat and water. Previous attempts were reviewed and their drawbacks pointed out, more particularly the smell due to certain putrid formations. The new special method was thus described: "The still fresh undecomposed lye passes through a depositing centrifugal machine, in which the dirt and fat are separated from each other, while the cleansed soap liquor is continually drawn off by means of a pipe and led direct into the vat which serves for the acidulation. The raw 'lanolin' thus obtained is thoroughly kneaded by suitable machinery with cold flowing water, until the water which flows away is as clear as the inflowing water. The raw 'lanolin' is then heated with water, whereby it is decomposed into the elements of water and fat. The latter is skinned off from the surface and cooled, and can then be again operated upon in the centrifugal machine in a melted condition for further 1 Frequently quoted with approval: Cassel Gold, &c. v. Cyanide Recovery, &c., 12 R. P. C. |