took the place of the original title, but now no objection can be taken to the provisional when it has not been objected to, or has been approved of, by the Comptroller and Law Officer.1

An invention claimed in the complete may be distinct from that foreshadowed in the provisional in two ways: (1) it may either be outside the scope and "ambit" of the provisional, or (2) it may be such an advance upon the invention mentioned therein as to amount to a distinct invention as distinguished from a “fair development."

Illustrations of Fair Developments.

A provisional described improvements in laying down telegraph cables. These consisted in a method of coiling the cable in a tank, and a brake-wheel to be used in paying it out. The complete described in addition a device consisting of rings suspended over the coil to prevent kinks. This was not a distinct invention, but an addition to enable the invention to be better carried into practice. See Newall v. Elliott, post, p. 201.

A provisional was taken out for an invention consisting of the employment of wood in the bearings of screw-propellers to diminish friction. A statement was made in the complete specification (in addition to a proper description of the invention) that a like effect could be obtained if pieces of wood were fixed to the shaft instead of the bearings. The claim was for the employment of "wood in the construction of the bearings and bushes," &c., as herein described." Held, that if the wood used on the shaft was a "bearing," it was included in the provisional, and if not, it was not claimed. Penn v. Bibby, L. R. Ch. Ap. 127, 135.

A bicycle lamp was described in the provisional as being so constructed that it, on being unhinged in the middle, could pass between the spokes, and be suspended over the axle, the parts next the hinge being a cylindrical barrel, split and shaped for this purpose. In the complete an improved rim, by means of which washers could be slid into the barrel was described. This was held to be within the specification, being a matter of detail in one element of the combination. Lucas v. Miller, 2 R. P. C. 155.

The provisional specification for "improvements in spring tip-vans " began as follows: "This invention relates to the construction of tip-vans or waggons, by which means vans or waggons may be made to tip their loads with the same facility as at present obtains in the case of two-wheel tip-carts." The tip-waggon was then described as consisting "for this purpose" of two main parts, the

1 Penn v. Bibby, L. R. 2 Ch. Ap. 133.

F

frame borne by the wheels and the upper body. The mechanism whereby the upper body could be tilted independently of the lower part was described. The complete specification described the mechanism in detail by means of drawings. The claims were: "First, the application of a four- or two-wheeled van or waggon to act as a tip-van or waggon, with the slotted links or levers, with parts hereinbefore described, &c. ;" and, "Second, the application of a tip-van or waggon on two or four wheels by means of the side-slot or groove-guards with parts hereinbefore described, &c." Held (by the Court of Appeal), that the essence of the invention had no relation to the number of wheels of the vehicle, and consequently no distinct additional invention was introduced in the complete specification. Watlings v. Stevens, 3 R. P. C. 147. A provisional specification described a pencil-case which acted by gravity by means of a pusher-tube which released a pin from a slot; the tube holding the lead with the pin attached then dropped down, the pin extending into two then coincident slots, and being again locked at the bottom. The complete showed in addition another device in which the relative actions of the parts was interchanged, the pin remaining fixed and a slot slipping over it. The principles employed in the locking device and mode of releasing the mechanism were the same. See Woodward v. Sansum,1 post, p. 300.

A provisional specification describing mechanism for turning forgings read as if the whole action were automatic. The complete showed the device with an addition to a lever so that it could be worked by hand. It was alleged that automatic action was useless. The provisional, although clumsily framed, sufficiently indicated the nature of the invention. See Vickers v. Siddell, post, p. 324. The provisional specification for an invention "relating to electric bells and alarm-clocks and apparatus to be used therewith," described a system whereby the bells could be actuated by less battery-power than had before been used. In the complete were three claims for things not mentioned in the provisional; two of these,were for details of the mechanism included in other claims, and the third was a claim for the combination of the improved bell with an indicator (a subsidiary claim). The patent was upheld. Crampton v. Patents Investment Co., 6 R. P. C. 287.

The title of a provisional and a complete specification was for "improvements in the method of weaving tinned steel or other wire for use in the construction of mattresses," shutters, mats, &c. A claim for "a mattress woven as described, and made in sections instead of a single piece," was held to be within the provisional. Dowling v. Billington, 7 R. P. C. 191.

See note to Castner-Kellner Alkali Co. v. Commercial, &c., post, p. 71.

A false theory being given in effect that an electric current could be "tapped" by transformers without loss of energy in the main current, the complete specification was amended by striking out the false theory. The Court of Appeal held that the amended specification described in consequence an invention different from the provisional, and that the patent was invalid on that ground, but the majority of the members in the House of Lords dissented from this view of disconformity. See Gaulard & Gibbs' Patent, post, p. 329.

A new form of gasholder was invented in which the gasholder was kept level without posts over ground. The provisional described it as arranged with torsional gearing only. The complete included tensional. See Gadd v. Mayor of Manchester, post, p. 351. A provisional specification for "an improved clip for mounting the lamps of velocipedes" described an arrangement in which one side of the clip was fixed to the lamp, the other was attached loosely to the lamp, and was capable of being moved laterally to fit brackets of different sizes. The movable half was kept in position by a spring or screw. Any system of lateral adjustment was included. In the complete specification one modification showed the movable part capable of adjustment laterally by means of rotation being mounted on a screw which, when turned, caused the movable part to fit into the bracket. Another arrangement consisted in hingeing both halves of the clip, and moving them simultaneously by means of a screw threaded right- and left-handed; this was not disconformity. Miller v. Scarle Barker, 10 R. P. C. 106.

A provisional specification for self-centering ships' telegraphs thus described the sounding mechanism: "In telegraphic apparatus of the kind or type herein referred to, gongs or bells are employed, and according to this invention the gong is sounded and the pointer moves up to the central or proper position as described practically simultaneously. By so operating the apparatus the instant attention is called to the instrument by the sounding of the gong the pointer will be in its central and proper position, and therefore the notification transmitted cannot be mistaken on the ground of want of correctness of the movement of the pointer. In the ordinary form of telegraphic apparatus, such as the example above described, these combined operations may take place as the pointer commences to move into the field of the adjacent order or notification on the dial." The complete specification described a duplex sounding mechanism, and claimed for "two or more soundings of the sounding device," and also for the employment of duplex sounding mechanism adapted to sound a gong "at or near the commencement of the movement of the pointer.. and also to sound a gong or the like towards the completion of

such movement." This was merely carrying out the invention in the best way discovered by the time the complete was drafted. Chadburn v. Mechan, 12 R. P. C. 120.

A provisional specification described a method of obtaining gold from its ores by dissolving it out with a solution of cyanide of potassium. The complete contained two claims, one for the use of cyanide of potassium, and the other for a process in which a dilute solution was used (post, p. 369). The dilute solution possessed the property of "selective action," i.e. of dissolving out the gold, leaving baser metals in solution. This was a useful discovery, and the second claim was held valid and to be within the provisional. But the patent was invalid owing to the first claim having been anticipated. Cassel Gold, &c., Co. v. Cyanide, &c., 12 R. P. C. 232, and post, p. 367.1

The provisional specification described a method of securing outer rubbers on tyres to wheels by means of two wire hoops of slightly smaller diameter across than the tyres to be covered, and screwed up outside the rims. The complete, in addition to that, showed endless wire hoops not screwed up, nor outside the rims. These latter operated by resisting extension of pneumatic tyres, and lay inside the edges of the rims. See Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Leicester Pneumatic Tyre Co., post, p. 422.

An invention consisted in making a socket for candlesticks by stamping it out of one sheet and then forming it circular. On it there were three prongs which served as springs to grip the candle when inserted in the socket. There were inserted three small prongs, or tits, all stamped out, between the three larger prongs. These were turned outwards, and prevented the device from going down too far in the tube of the candlestick. The addition of the additional little prongs did not constitute disconformity. Carter v. Leyson, 18 R. P. C. 508.

The provisional specification described a pneumatic tyre consisting of an annular hollow ring or pneumatic tube placed in the groove of the wheel, over which an annular split cover, or envelope, went over the tube, and was secured under the rim by means of hooks or similar fasteners, so that when pumped up the whole was taut. "In some cases instead of bringing the cover round the back of the wheel-rim as described, I might bring the cover round within the rim, and secure it to the rim by inner fastenings or by expansion against the overhanging sides of the rim." The complete specification showed different methods of catching the cover by the

In this case, like Nuttall v. Hargreaves, post, p. 334, and Cera Light Co. v. Dobbie, post, p. 71, the provisional merely described what was old, the whole merit lay in the new development, but here the latter had a separate claim, and the patent was held invalid on another claim for want of novelty, post, p. 369.

edges of the rim. But there were also shown and claimed modes of attaching the edges of the cover to each other. The inventor discovered that he could dispense with the fastenings and overhanging edges of the rim by overlapping the edges of the cover to an extent equal to the width of the rim, and that the air-pressure was sufficient to keep on the tyre owing to the friction of the edges of the cover against each other, and the one against the hollow of the rim. There was no disconformity. Birmingham Pneumatic Tyre Synd. v. Reliance Tyre Co., 19 R. P. C. 298.

Illustrations of Distinct Inventions invalidating the Patent, (1) being outside the Provisional.

A provisional specification described means of preserving animal substances by means of a solution of gelatine and bisulphite of lime. The complete contained a claim for the use of bisulphite of lime alone, and several for it in combination with gelatine and other substances. The claim for bisulphite of lime alone, if a principal claim (and not a mere foundation for other claims), would enlarge the monopoly and invalidate the patent. See Bailey v. Roberton, post, p. 270.

The provisional specification described a means of reproducing electrically sounds at a distance-a telephone. A claim in the complete for reproducing sounds mechanically—a phonograph-is one for a distinct invention. See United Telephone Co. v. Harrison & Co., post, p. 281.

In a provisional specification for "improvements in machinery or arrangements for doubling and winding, and doubling, twisting, and winding yarns or threads," the prime object of the whole invention. was to arrest the machinery by means of detector mechanism on the breaking of a thread. In the complete was included a claim for a prop which had to do with a distinct portion of the mechanism, viz. to sustain oscillating mechanism enabling the broken thread to be joined and the winding started. Horrocks v. Stubbs, 3 R. P. C. 235.

A provisional specification for "improvements in apparatus for the generation and application of electricity for lighting," &c., described four divisions of the invention. One was "constructing commutators cylindrical with an insulating hub or body to which are attached metallic sub-segments placed in electrical connection with the general mechanism in which the commutator is employed, and metallic wearing segments detachably attached to said subsegments." The metallic sub-segments were made of gun-metal, the wearing segments attached to them were of steel. When worn by use they could easily be replaced. There were two claims for these, one for their use and the other for the mode of attachment