412 Portions of diagrams from Brooks's specification (No. 22608 of 1892). 29 frame-rods, f, pass, and lie within opposed bearings, 17, 18, formed within the sectional clip parts 1, 2, and threaded washers 77, whilst the whole of the parts are drawn together by the nuts, taking upon the screwed trunnion-like ends, and by such drawing up the sectional parts are closed, the frame-rods, ƒ are clamped between the opposed clamping surfaces, hence the connection of the boss or clip to the framing, and at the same time the sectional parts i, are drawn upon the pillar j. "Instead of the cross-pins in Figs. 4, 5, 6, and 7 being slotted at their ends, &c." The last four claims were : "Fourthly :-In a saddle-frame and seat-pillar boss connection, consisting of sectional and clip parts adapted to embrace the pillar and to be drawn together by cross-pins, wherein or around which the seatings of opposed clamping washers or plates or their equivalents take or come and grip the frame-rods, so that on the screwing up of nuts or their equivalents upon the ends of the pins the frame-rods of the saddle are clamped to the connection, and at the same time the connection or boss to the seat-pillar or other support, substantially as described and set forth. "Fifthly:-In seat-pillar bosses or like connections or clamping means, consisting of an inner ring body-part, having trunnion or screw pins at its two opposite sides, and internal clearances made through the ring, and which ring is embraced by section pillar-clips, having frame-rod seatings upon the two opposite sides and with seating-washers or rod-clamping plates with opposed rod-seatings coming opposite them, substantially as described and set forth. "Sixthly:-The improvements in the general construction, arrangement, and combination of the parts of seat-pillar bosses, substantially as described and set forth in Figs. 4, 5, 6 and 7. "Seventhly :-The improvements in the general construction, arrangement, and combination of the parts of seat-pillar bosses substantially as described and set forth in Figs. 8, 9 and 10." Amongst other objections raised to the validity of this patent was that of "disconformity," consisting of the introduction of the device shown in Figs. 8, 9 and 10, which were alleged not to come within the provisional specification. At the trial it was held that the device in question was a fair development of the method disclosed in the provisional. On appeal to the Court of Appeal this decision was reversed. Per Smith, L.J. (at p. 50): "It is said that this is a mere modification of the arrangement described in the provisional specification, and not in any sense a new invention. We cannot so regard it. It preserves, it is true, the possibility of lateral adjustment by drawing the framing-rods through the bearings when the nuts are loose; but this is common to every arrangement whereby framing-rods are held in position by the action of nuts upon washers. But it entirely abandons what we regard as the special object and feature of the combination, namely, the method of tilting the saddle and holding it in its place by the operation of winged and slotted clips and two pins, one acting as a pivot, the other affording the means of fixing it in the desired position in the slotted wings. A ring which embraces the vertical pillar, and so being incapable of pivoting, makes it impossible for the frame-rods which pass through the gaps in it to be tilted, seems to us in no sense a development of the former arrangement. . . . We think that in dealing with patents for special arrangements of very familiar mechanical means, such as pins, washers, clips, or gripping-cheeks, nuts, &c., it is necessary to scrutinize the invention claimed with some nicety. By straining the doctrine of mechanical equivalents a patent for a particular combination of well-known appliances for fastening the framing rods of a saddle to a vertical pillar might be made to cover almost any other combination. . . . "It seems to us to be a different means of accomplishing a different end, namely, the rigid attachment of an untiltable saddle to the vertical pillar, and therefore outside the provisional specification." 1898. THE GORMULLY & JEFFERY MANUFACTURING CO. v. NORTH BRITISH RUBBER Co., 15 R. P. C. 245. Construction-Nature of Real Invention—Alleged Anticipation. A patent (No. 16783 of 1890) was granted to W. E. Bartlett for "improvements in tyres or rims for cycles and other vehicles.” The complete specification was as follows: "This invention relates to tyres which consist of a flat endless band of indiarubber wider than the dovetailed groove into which it is inserted, so that it assumes an arched form when in place. I introduce between the arched outside tyre and the circular bottom of the metal rim a tube constructed of cloth and indiarubber provided with a branch for filling it with compressed air. By this arrangement the outer band-tyre may be reduced in thickness, and while assisting in sustaining the pressure (from weight) on the outer band, the lateral pressure of the inside air-tube will press its edges tightly against the dovetailed flanges of the metal rim, and thus be effective in holding it more firmly against the flanges of the metal rim at the momentarily bearing part of the tyre. It will be obvious that one advantage of this arrangement is that successive outside bands or tyres can be renewed from time to time without the necessity of wasting the tubular air-chamber between it and the metal rim, and thus greater economy will be attainable. It will be generally most convenient to have the filling-tube of the tubular airchamber projecting from the surface of the tubular air-chamber resting on the metal rim, in which a hole is bored through which to pass the fillingtube. "Where thin outer tyres are used I slightly thicken their edges where they lie inside the trough." "DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS. "Figs. 1 and 2 are transverse sections of wheels made according to my invention; a is the outer tyre of indiarubber or other elastic material, b is a metal tyre or rim, c is an air-tight tubular chamber, and d is the fillingtube." The claims were: "(1) The combination of a grooved rim or metal tyre, and an arched tyre of indiarubber or other flexible material held in the groove by the pressure of an inflated tube within the arch which forces its edge against the sides of the groove substantially as described. "(2) Tyres or rims for cycles and other vehicles e consisting of the parts a, b, c combined and arranged substantially as described and shown in the drawings." 1893. 1894. FIG. 3. FIG. 4. This was an action for infringement. One form of the alleged infringement is shown in Figs. 3 and 4, in which a is the outer cover, b the rim, c the inner air-tube (rubber alone), e, thickened lugs projecting into and held by the inturned edges or hooks, f, of the rim. The only difference between the two tyres shown is the overlapping in the 1894 tyre. The defendants' contention was that their tyres acted differently from the plaintiffs', which they alleged acted as if it were "dovetailed" into the rim. This is shown in Fig. 1 by the addition of words from the defendants' case as submitted to the House of Lords. They alleged that in their tyres the air-pressure, being everywhere normal to the tube (as shown by the arrows, B, in Fig. 4), produced a tangential strain or pull (shown at c) which was resisted by the lugs f. At the trial and in the Court of Appeal the patent was upheld and the specification construed; the claim was held to be one not to the mere combination of the inner tube, rim, and outer tube, but for the arrangement whereby the air-pressure of the inner tube kept the tyre in position; and it was also held that defendants had infringed the patent. On appeal to the House of Lords, the decision of the Court of Appeal was upheld. Per Lord Watson (p. 253): "The appellants maintain that the letters patent do not disclose any new or useful invention, and are therefore invalid if the specification be so liberally interpreted as to bring their manufacture within its scope. In view of that defence it becomes necessary, first of all, to consider what is the true nature and merit, if any, of the invention which is described in the specification. . . ." P. 257: “The claim, as I construe it, is a claim for a method shown in the specification, or for any method substantially the same, of so connecting the ends of the outer cover with the metal rim that the ends of the cover are firmly held and detained, and that part of it which comes in contact with the ground is kept in its proper position as the outer part of the tyre of the wheel. And on a fair consideration of the terms of the specification, taken as a whole, the claim so made appears to me to embody the pith and substance of the invention. I do not think that the patentee claims to have invented the use of a metal rim, an outer cover, or an inner pneumatic tube constructed of cloth and indiarubber, either singly, or as forming in combination the tyre or felloe of a wheel for cycles or other vehicles. In my apprehension what he does claim as a novel invention is the mode which he has described of making such an attachment between the ends of the cover and the edges of the metal rim as will serve, if I may use the expression, to consolidate these three component parts of the tyre, whilst the wheel is in motion, by retaining both the cover and the inner tube in their right positions. According to that view of the specification there is no evidence tending to impeach either the novelty or the utility of the invention." Lord Shand (p. 256): "This view" (that the patentee was confined to the use of "cloth and rubber" air-tube) "would, it appears to me, have been sound and irresistible if, on a true construction of the patent, the inner tube in its form and material and mode of action had been the point or essence and substance of the invention, or if the invention claimed had been merely the combination of outer tyre, inner tube, and metal rim |