Page images
PDF
EPUB

6

6

[ocr errors]

were held sufficiently certain: Improvements in the manufacture of plated articles,' when there was only a single improvement (Nickels v. Haslam, 8 Scott, N. R. 97). A new or improved method of obtaining the reproduction of all the images received in the focus of the camera obscura,' leaving it a matter of doubt whether the method was altogether a new one, or only an improvement (Beard v. Egerton, 3 C. B. 97). A process for more distinctly showing the finer lines of an engraving by means of a glazed surface on the paper designed to receive the impression, was held sufficiently described by the words Certain improvements in copper and other plate printing' (Sturtz v. De la Rue, 5 Russ. 322). Title, Improvements in Carriages: the specification described improvements in adapting German shutters to carriages. But as such shutters can only be applied to covered carriages, and the title spoke generally of carriages, it was contended that it was too large. After argument, it was held a sufficiently accurate title; Tindal, C. J., observing that it would endanger the validity of very many patents which have hitherto been free from exception, if the mere fact that their titles were given in such terms as to be capable of comprising other inventions besides that contained in the specification were sufficient to avoid them, in the absence of any proof of intention to commit a fraud on the Crown, or to deceive or mislead the public. (Cook v. Pearce, 8 Q. B. 1044.)

Improvements in ma

A patent was obtained for chinery for the manufacture of bobbin net lace.' It was objected that the invention really was only for making a spot during a particular part of the process, and was useless where that addition was not wanted. The court, however, overruled the objection. (Fisher v. Dewick, 1 W. P. C. 264.)

6

The title and specification must be read together; and if the former should be ambiguous, the latter may explain it. Thus the title of Neilson's patent was an invention for the improved application of air to produce heat in furnaces where bellows or other blowing apparatus are required.' The invention disclosed by the specification was the introduction into the furnace of air heated between the blowing apparatus and the furnace; and it was held that this answered sufficiently well to the title. (Neilson v. Harford, 1 W. P. C. 312, 373.)

CHAPTER VI.

THE PROVISIONAL SPECIFICATION.

THE fifth section of the Patent Act of 1883 directs that the application for a patent must be accompanied by either a provisional or complete specification. The latter instrument is the subject of the next chapter; it is to the former that we now draw the reader's attention. According to the third subsection of the same section, a provisional specification must describe the nature of the invention, and be accompanied by drawings if required; whilst by the fifth subsection it is directed that it must commence with the title. It ought not to comprise more than one invention (sect. 33), and the Comptroller may refuse to accept it if it does comprise more. The applicant, however, is authorised by Rule 23 of the Patents Rules, 1883, to amend the application so as to make it apply to one invention only; and he can then make application, if he thinks proper, for separate patents for the other inventions. In that case every such application will be dated as of the date of the first application, as if originally made on that date. Then by the sixth section the Comptroller is directed to refer every application to an examiner who is to ascertain and report to him whether the nature of the invention has been fairly described, and the applica

The form of the application is given as already stated in the second schedule to the Patents Rules, 1883, Form A. In case of an application on a communication from abroad Form A 1 must be used. See Rule 27. As to the procedure the reader is referred to the note on p. 97.

tion, specification and drawings (if any) have been prepared in the prescribed manner. If the examiner reports (sect. 7) that the nature of the invention is not fairly described, or that the application, specification, or drawings has not or have not been prepared in the prescribed manner, the Comptroller may require that the application, specification, or drawings be amended before he proceeds with the application. Where the Comptroller requires an amendment, the applicant may appeal from his decision to the law officer, who will, if required, hear the applicant and the Comptroller, and may make an order determining whether and subject to what conditions, if any, the application shall be accepted. When an application has been accepted, the Comptroller will give notice thereof to the applicant, and by Rule 25 of the Patents Rules, 1883, he will advertise such acceptance in the official journal of the Patent Office. The provisional specification will not, however, be open to the inspection of the public.

When the legal representative of a deceased inventor intends to apply for a patent, under the authority of the 34th section of the Patent Act of 1883, the application must be made within six months of the decease, and it must contain a declaration by the legal representative that he believes the person whom he represents to have been the true and first inventor of the invention. An official copy of or extract from the will or letters of administration must accompany the application in proof of the applicant's title. (Rule 24.)

A general description of the invention, fairly showing its real nature, is sufficient for the provisional specification. Minute details as to the manner of carrying out the invention need not be given.

It will be seen hereafter that it is not allowable to

vary the invention in any material respect, or to introduce matter into the complete specification which is not to be found in outline in the provisional; and the chief object of the provisional specification is to afford means for securing the identity of the invention as described at the time of application and when finally specified.

The provisional specification is not intended to ascertain the entirety but the identity of the invention, said Pollock, C. B., in Newall v. Elliott, 1 H. & C. 797. And see also Foxwell v. Bostock, 4 De G. J. & S. 298. But these cases ought to be considered with reference to the later cases of Penn v. Bibby (L. R. 2 Ch. D. 127), Bailey v. Roberton (L. R. 3 App. Cas. 1055), United Telephone Company v. Harrison (L. R. 21 Ch. D. 746), which show that if the claims of the complete specification are not comprehended within the terms of the provisional specification, the patent will be invalid.

A provisional specification (said Jessel, M. R., in Stoner v. Todd, L. R. 4 Ch. D. 58) is not intended to contain a complete description of the thing so as to enable any workman of ordinary skill to make it, but only to disclose the invention-fairly, no doubt, but in its rough state, until the inventor can perfect its details.

The office of the provisional specification' (said Lord Chelmsford, in Penn v. Bibby, L. R. 2 Ch. 127) 'is to describe the nature of the invention, not with minute particularity, but with sufficient precision and accuracy to inform the law officer what is to be the subjectmatter of the patent. It is not at all necessary that the provisional specification should describe the mode or modes in which the invention is to be worked or carried out.'

When an inventor is engaged in preparing his provisional specification, he ought, therefore, to keep in mind that every part of the invention, excepting details,

« PreviousContinue »