of combustion from the fires A and B pass into the chambers C and D, and issuing thence by the passages K, circulate around the vessels G, heating them, and finally flow away by the passages L to the chimney-flue M. Weak sulphuric acid supplied from the tank P, where it is somewhat heated, flows into the taper-tube of the highest vessel G, and is conducted by the tube to the bottom of the vessel, causing overflow by the spout of the vessel into the taper-tube of the next lower vessel, and thus the acid flows from vessel to vessel becoming more and more concentrated, until finally it overflows from the lowest of the vessels into the receiving-tank Q. The vapour and fumes evolved pass away by the pipes O. "By arranging the overflow from each of the vessels G to descend by a tube to the bottom of the next vessel, I ensure that all portions of the liquid are subjected to heating while they reascend to overflow again. If the weak acid simply overflowed from one vessel to the next without being forced to descend, it would, owing to its comparative lightness, be apt to flow merely across the upper part of the vessel, whereas by conducting it down to the bottom it displaces a portion of the liquid above it, causing overflow of that which has been heated while ascending from the bottom. "The numbers and dimensions of the vessels G may obviously be varied, and a single fire or more than two fires or gas-burners might be used for heating them, these appliances being arranged in any convenient manner to give an approximately uniform heat throughout the chamber containing the vessels G, without any openings which might allow cold air to strike against the glass." The claim was in the following terms: "For concentrating sulphuric acid, a series of glass vessels placed on steps in a heating-chamber, each of these vessels being made with an overflow spout and having placed in it a glass tube reaching down to its bottom from the spout of the next higher vessel, arranged and operating substantially as herein described." An action for infringement of this patent was brought by the patentee against Kynochs, Ltd., in the High Court of Justice in Ireland. Besides denying infringement the defendants also contended that the patent was invalid because- inter alia-the invention was not new, nor subject-matter for a patent, the specification did not distinguish what parts of the alleged invention were new and what old, and that it was ambiguous and misleading. The principal anticipation alleged was Chance's process (Specification No. 1243 of 1871). Chance's apparatus1 (Figs. 1 and 2) consisted of a series of retorts, a, resting on sand, b, in an inclined flue, c, heated by a furnace, d, at its lower end. Dilute acid entered at the top by the pipe, passed down the funnel e to the bottom of the retort. The overflow of acid (more concentrated owing to evaporation) passed similarly through the pipe 1 Fig. I is a cross-section through the lowest retort of the series; Fig. 2, a longitudinal section of the arrangement. ƒ to the next retort, until the final product issued from the lowest retort. The retorts were kept at gradually increasing temperatures by reason of the furnace being at the lower end. The steam was either carried off by a separate flue, g (Fig. 1), or allowed to evaporate without such flue. Other diagrams showed the mode of arrangement of the apparatus on a manufacturing scale. The claim was for the continuous process. Another alleged anticipation showed open beakers with lips for the overflow, without tubes to bottom of vessels, but it had not been practically used. It was proved at the trial that the invention in question produced improved results over the older combinations. The output of acid was more than doubled and the cost of fuel greatly diminished. Breakages could be immediately repaired without stopping the process. At the trial the patent was upheld by the Master of the Rolls. (15 R. P. C. 269.) On appeal to the Court of Appeal the lords justices were equally divided in opinion, so the appeal was dismissed. (15 R. P. C. 541.) The defendants appealed to the House of Lords. Held, that the patent was invalid, as the claim was wide enough to include Chance's invention. Per Lord Halsbury, L.C. (p. 107): "It seems to me that the majority of the Court relied on the fallacious assumption that every improvement in a known patentable article was necessarily of itself a patentable improvement, and that in this case, in which I will assume in favour of the respondent that his machine is better, cheaper, and more efficient than that of the original patentee, this entitles him, not only to use the original patentee's invention, but actually to proceed against him for an infringement of his patent. . . . Now, the claim is that which explains the invention, and the width of the claim is here probably intentional. It is aimed at comprehending every form in which this invention can be used; and if Chance's patent were still unexpired, it would be impossible for him, in my judgment, to escape from an action for infringement if this patent were before his, and the limit within which a patentee's rights are to be confined is no immaterial or trivial matter." Per Lord Davey, (p. 115): "Any one might, of course, invent an improvement in any of the parts of the apparatus or a new arrangement or some useful addition to the parts of the apparatus described by Chance, and (if otherwise patentable) claim protection for such improvements. But this is not what the respondent has done. He does not by his specification claim to be the inventor of any such improvement, but his claim is for the combination, and whatever merit is in his patent is the combination. Putting it at the best for him he claims a particular form of Chance's machine; but in my opinion, as I have already said, his claim is wide enough to cover all that Chance invented and described." His lordship referred to Foxwell v. Bostock (ante, p. 225), Harrison v. Anderston Foundry Co., (ante, p. 249), and other cases, and continued (p. 116): “I will assume that the respondent's apparatus is more compact and easily worked, and produces better results with a less expenditure of fuel than one made strictly in accordance with the illustration of his invention given by Chance, and it is not wonderful that with the experience of nearly thirty years that should be so. But that will not, in my opinion, entitle him to maintain his present patent. The fallacy which underlies the respondent's arguments, and with great respect some of the judgments below, is the assumption that every useful discovery is a patentable invention." His lordship referred to Lord Cranworth's judgment (Ralston v. Smith, ante, p. 230), and continued: "In the present case I cannot say that the respondent's apparatus, as claimed by him in his specification, is a new manufacture within the realm. . . . If upon a fair construction of the specification with the assistance of experts and other admissible evidence, you find it contains matters that are not new, you must give effect to it. You are not to put a forced construction on the specification, as not intending to claim something that is old because it was foolish or suicidal of the patentee to claim it." DICK V. ELLAM'S DUPLICATOR COMPANY, 17 R. P. C. 196. Subject-matter-Claim too wide. A patent (No. 12013* of 1887) was granted to H. J. Allison for "improvements in the process of and apparatus for the copying, duplication, and printing of writings, drawings, typewriting, prints, and designs." The complete specification commenced with a description of the invention. To make a stencil "I use a thin, tough, highly porous sheet, coated or filled with a material impervious to ink, the sheet being so thin and porous that wherever the filling or coating is removed, the sheet becomes open to the transmission of ink." The sheets were preferably to be thin enough to be permeated by printers' ink after a typewriter had been used to remove the paraffin coating. A thin porous sheet, as Japan dental paper or Yoshino, or any other sufficiently thin, was coated with paraffin or other impervious substance. A typewriter or similar instrument could then open the pores without puncturing or abrading the surface. The chief function of this sheet was for duplication of typewriting. The application of the paraffin or its substitute was described. "In the process I use by preference a sheet of the said dental paper" of a certain thinness. The details of the process of waxing this paper were described. "I do not claim this process of waxing the sheet, however, but only describe it to enable it to be made without difficulty. I believe that wellknown methods of manufacture are equally efficacious." The mode of using the stencil thus produced to make copies was next described. The bearing surfaces used in making the stencil sheet were disclaimed, also the method of making stencils from paper impervious to ink, and the use of chemicals to eat into the texture of impervious paper. The claims were : "1. A transmitting printing-sheet consisting of a thin porous transmitting sheet, through which ink is readily transmitted, as Japanese dental paper or Yoshino, filled or coated with a substance impervious to ink, as paraffin, substantially as described." The 2nd claim was for the removal of the paraffin from such sheet at the points of printing. The 3rd for the process of preparing the printing-sheet by the pressure of the printing instrument. The 4th for a like method of making the printing-sheet from Yoshino by a typewriter. "5. A transmitting printing-sheet consisting of a sheet of Japanese dental paper or Yoshino coated with paraffin substantially as described." At the trial a number of specifications were alleged as anticipations. It was proved that waxed papers were known, varying, as to thickness, toughness, and texture. Waxing paper was a well-known process. It also appeared that perforation did in fact take place in plaintiff's process, but the disclaimer was held to apply only to cases where perforation avowedly took place. The patent was held invalid for want of novelty or subject-matter. Held, that the first and fifth claims were for a particular kind of paper printing-sheet, apart from the mode of producing it, and were too wide to support the patent. Per Lindley, L.J. (p. 202): "There is nothing new in covering paper with any kind of wax. Then he says, 'I take a particular class of thin, tough, porous paper. That is what I want, and I claim all such paper covered with wax.' Having regard to the state of knowledge, and having regard to what was done, there appears to me an absolute want of subjectmatter at all. You cannot have a patent for covering one kind of paper with wax, when it is common knowledge that you can cover any paper with wax. The real truth is that his invention is the use of such paper with a particular typewriting machine." 1900. COOPER & Co v. BAEDEKER, 17 R. P. C. 209. Large Sale Want of Inventive Ingenuity. A patent was granted in 1894 (No. 18349) to F. G. Bensley for "improvements in felt handles for velocipedes, golf-sticks, and for other articles, and in the manufacture of the said handles." The following extract from the complete specification describes the invention : "Fig. I is a side view of a velocipede felt handle constructed according to this invention; Fig. 2 is an end view of the same; Fig. 3 is a crosssection of the same on line X X of Fig. 1; Fig. 4 is a longitudinal section of the same; Fig. 5 is a side elevation, and Fig. 6 is an end elevation |