384

joists or girders [a, Figs. 2 and 3] and the lower part of the tubular lintels.

Concrete is placed

between and over the tubular lintels so as to form

concrete arches, which take their bearing on the lower flanges [J, a] of the joists or girders independently of the lintels.

"The functions of the tubular lintels is to protect the joists or girders from the action of fire, to act as centering until the concrete is set, and to reduce the dead weight of the floor. Dovetail grooves [g, Fig. 3] are formed in the under surface of the lintels to make a key for the plaster or other material of the ceiling below. . . ."

"The joists or girders J, J. . . are fixed at a suitable pitch to give the required strength, and the lintels L, L... are made of the proper lengths

to slot in between the

webs W, W1

to rest on the lower flanges a, ai

...

...

of the joists or girders J, J. . . and thereof. The lintels L, L1... are fixed

in such a manner that their lower or flat portions p, p1... are below the bottom flanges a, a1. . . of the joists or girders, leaving an air-space, S,

between the two.

"The lateral flanges ff... owing to their peculiar shape, allow the concrete, which fills the space between the same and covers the lintels L, L..., to have a direct bearing on the lower flanges a, al. . . of the said joists or girders J, J1. . ., this concrete supporting, when set, the flooring

and the load placed thereon."

The floors and ceiling were to be finished in the usual manner.

"The joists or girders can also be perforated as shown at d, d... making the air-space in the upper part of the tubular lintel continuous in addition to the air-space S; the air-spaces thus formed being continuous, constitute a flue or conduit for the outward passage of foul air or heat through the

walls

into the open air outside.

"My improved lintel enables me to protect the load-carrying material, to dispense with centering, to considerably reduce the dead weight of the floor, while permitting floors to be constructed expeditiously and

economically."

The claims were :~

..

(1) The improved construction of fire-proof flooring arranged and

operating substantially

as and for the purpose described.

"(2) The improved flanged tubular fire-proof lintels, substantially as hereinbefore described and shown on the drawing."

At the trial of the action for infringement the usual defences were
The most important alleged anticipations were descriptions in

set up.

specifications, as follows:

Abord's (American, No. 57450 of 1866)1 was for bricks, B, for ceilings. These (as shown in longitudinal section in Fig. 1) rested on the flanges a of the girders A, with projections, b, underneath to hide the girders, the

Spaces c

being for the introduction of mortar to bind the bricks and

The sketches here given essrs. Faithfull & Owen.

Me

1

are taken from the diagrams used at the trial, by the courtesy of

386

used.

cover the girders, and the indentations & underneath to fix plaster where The bricks were lightened by being hollowed crosswise, the spaces e being across the brick. Fig. 2 is a section across the middle of the The invention was “substituting for . . . brick parallel to the girders A.

in the case of fire-proof structures, metal cross-ties and the usual filling in between the girders, hollow or tubular bricks, &c." There was no mention

of construction of floors.

floors.

Snelgrove's (No. 7339 of 1885) was for improvements in ceilings and The main feature was the construction of blocks so that they could be readily inserted between the girders or joists. These are shown in longitudinal section (b) in Fig. 7, and in cross-section (b) in Fig 9 (on line "Sometimes " tiles (e) in Figs. 7 and 9 were placed upon For the purposes of the blocks and the interstices filled in with cement.

xx of Fig. 7). "Sometimes

Diagrams from Snelgrove's specification (No. 7339 of 1885).

insertion these were shorter than the distance between the girders, and were placed alternately in contact with each girder. Concrete or cement grouting or other suitable material was filled in to support the tiles of the Evidence was given that the whole strength would be due to the

floor above.

blocks b.

arches

Bruner's (American, No. 356,703, 1887) was for improvements in or beams. These arches were made of concrete, cast with an iron

necessarily, in separate halves. Fig. 1 shows a longitudinal section of half rod running through the arch. They were made preferably, but not an arch, in which A is the floor above, resting on the girder B and concrete D is the section of the half-arch. Fig. 2 is a cross-section of the floor

C.

through the end of the half-arch of the form shown in Fig. 3. E is air-space between the arches, formed by putting thin boards, e, across the arches to support the concrete C. These spaces were described as "very important, as they effect a saving of material and a reduction in the weight of the structure." F is the iron rod cast in the arch, and wires were inserted in the concrete parallel to the edges to hold it together. Fig. 4 shows another shape of half-arch, which might be useful in some cases, as to

which no directions were given. These arches were placed side by side, flanges touching, but there was no indication that the spaces E were to be filled by concrete.

There was no proof that floors had ever been constructed according to the alleged anticipating specifications.

Evidence was given that Fawcett's floor would support the weight it was intended for, even after the lintels had been broken away.

The learned judge held at the trial that, having regard to the state of knowledge, there was not sufficient invention to support the patent.

On appeal to the Court of Appeal

Held, that the invention was for a novel combination of old parts, producing a self-supporting floor, and that it was good subject-matter for a patent. Also that the second claim for the lintels was a claim for their use in fire-proof floors, and not generally.

Lindley, L.J. (at p. 405): "The merit of an inventor very often consists.

388

in clearly realizing some particular useful end to be attained, or 'in apprehending a desideratum. If an inventor does this, and also shows how to attain the desired effect by some new contrivance, his invention is patentable, although his contrivance involves the use of things, or parts of things,

previously used by other people.

Were it otherwise, no patent for a new

thing comprised of well-known parts would ever be sustained. This appears to me to be the case here. The patentee had in his mind something which had never before occurred to any one; and the merit of his invention

is attributable to this circumstance."

Rigby, L.J.

(at p. 409), dealt with the construction of the second claim. The patent "is for improvements in the construction of fire-proof floors.' the distinction between ceilings and floors. The

There, I know, is

patentee has taken the floor throughout, and the lintel is only a means to an end, put forth throughout the whole of this specification as a means, and as a means, I may say, without shrinking at all. It is the means for producing the end aimed at, that is, the construction of a fire-proof floor, so that the claim must not be construed, unless on the perverse idea of destroying the patent, instead of giving a fair effect to it-it must not be construed as a mere claim for the lintel in that shape and form as it appears, and independent of its use. function which is clearly and plainly and very fully put forth in the

specification. . . ."

In fact, you cannot throw over the

At P. 410: "I therefore come to the conclusion that

the claim of the lintel was a claim not intended, and not operating unduly, to extend the scope of the patent, and that it be legitimate to separate the lintel itself-and this was the mainstay of the argument before us— from the purpose for which it was designed. To do so, and to hold that the patent was invalid on that ground, would really be departing from the substance in order to adhere unnecessarily to the mere letter. The merit of this patent is not so much in the way in which the idea was carried out as in conceiving the idea itself. Then the thing became I should like also to protest against the notion that you can in any way take away from the merit of an inventor by pointing out that one of his details is to be found in one obscure specification, and another detail in another, and so on, and saying that all he had to do was to put these things together, and then he would get a hint of one thing from one place and another thing from another. It is the getting of the idea, and it is the putting together of that idea, with the mechanical means of attaining it, that constitute invention."

simple.

1896. THE INCANDESCENT GAS LIGHT Co. v. DE MARE, &C.,

13 R. P. C. 559.

Construction of Specification—Pioneer Invention.

A patent (No. 15286 of 1885) was granted to C. v. Welsbach for the 'manufacture of an illuminant appliance for gas and other burners."