representative, and sealed at any time within twelve months after the applicant's death.

In the event of an applicant dying before leaving a complete specification there is no express authority given by the Act to his legal representative to leave that instrument at the Patent Office, or for the Comptroller to accept it if left. It may perhaps be held that such authority is impliedly given by the section just referred to.

Persons occupying an official position may under certain circumstances be incapable of obtaining a patent for inventions connected with the subject-matter of their official business. Thus, Patterson, one of the three gas referees appointed by the Board of Trade under the City of London Gas Act of 1868, procured a patent for an improved mode of purifying coal gas on March 9, 1872. It was stated that he had obtained a knowledge of the patented process in the course of his labours as referee, and it appeared that the alleged invention had been described by the three referees, including Patterson, in an official report, which though dated January 31, 1872, and printed about that time, was kept back from the authorities to whom it ought to have been presented as soon as printed, until March 26. A suit for an infringement of the patent having been decided in Patterson's favour, the case went before the Court of Appeal (Patterson v. Gas Light and Coke Company, L. R. 2 Ch. D. 812), and then to the House of Lords (L. R. 3 App. Cas. 239), where it was held that the knowledge obtained in the discharge of his duty by one referee, and by him communicated to his colleagues, became at once public property, and could not be treated by them as confidential, nor could one of their number take out a patent for it.

CHAPTER V.

THE TITLE.

THE proceedings on the application for a patent' commence with the preparation of a declaration, to the effect that the applicant is in possession of an invention whereof he, or in the case of a joint application one or more of the applicants, claims or claim to be the true and first inventor or inventors. The form of the declaration, which must bear the stamp of ll., is set forth in the second schedule to the Patents Rules, 1883. It must be made before a justice of the peace, or a person authorised to administer oaths in any court in the United Kingdom. When left at the Patent Office it must be accompanied by either a provisional or complete specification, and that specification must in either case commence with the title (Patents Act 1883, sect. 5). The application and specification are then referred by the comptroller to an examiner, part of whose duty is to ascertain and report whether the title sufficiently indicates the subject-matter of the invention (sect. 6); and if he reports that the title does not sufficiently indicate the subject-matter of the invention, the comptroller may require it to be amended (sect. 7).

1 Stamped forms of application have been placed on sale at the chief post-offices of the United Kingdom. Applications, as well as any other document, notice, &c., required to be left at the Patent Office, may be sent in a prepaid letter through the post. See section 97 of the new Act, and Rule 19 of the Patents Rules, 1883.

The procedure on applications is regulated by Rules 8, 9, 10, 21 27, 28, and 29.

The title is the short statement by which the inventor sets forth in very general terms the object of the invention; and this being repeated in the body of the declaration, and finally transferred into the patent, is styled the Title of the Patent. Thus he may apply for a patent in respect of Improvements in locomotive steam engines,' or for A new or improved sewing machine,' or for Improved methods of purifying illuminating gas.' The words here placed between, marks of quotation would be the titles of the respective patents.

6

At a time when a provisional specification was not required to be lodged with the petition, and when consequently the title could not be officially compared with a description of the invention, it not unfrequently happened that the title was incorrect, and patents were sometimes lost from want of care in this particular. For if the title was too comprehensive-that is, if it extended to matters not included in the invention, the patent was bad. If, on the other hand, it was too narrow, besides excluding by its very terms something which the inventor might have secured, the patent would likewise be held bad in case the specification went beyond the title.

But now, since the title is accompanied by an outline or full description of the invention, in the shape of a provisional or complete specification, and the papers are submitted to an official examination, any false step that the inventor may make in regard to the title will probably be detected, and can be rectified. This, however, will involve delay and trouble, and the inventor will do well to take some pains to frame an unobjectionable title at first.

It is advisable to disclose the invention in as general terms as may be allowed, lest other persons who were about to specify should obtain a clue to it,

and frame their specification so as to deprive the real inventor of the priority and the reward which are his right. Instances of the nature referred to have not been, it is true, of common occurrence; but they have occurred, and it is desirable that an inventor should be cautious as to the language he uses.

In framing the title the inventor must carefully avoid the use of language which will lay it open to the charges of being too large, uncertain, inapplicable, inexplicable, inconsistent, vague, ambiguous, and at variance with the specification '-charges which it appears from a reported case were once heaped upon an unfortunate title relating to the simple matter of paving with wood.

With the view of showing the inventor who is engaged in preparing his application for a patent what are the principal errors to be avoided in framing the title, the following cases have been selected from those decided by the courts.

If the title bears evidence upon its face of an intention to deceive the public as to the subject-matter of the invention, this is a point which may be urged before a jury with fatal effect, for their opinion may be taken as to the existence of such an intention. (Cook v. Pearce 8 Q. B. 1044.)

The title of the invention spoke of a tapering brush; the specification disclosed the invention of a brush in which the bristles were of an unequal length, but there was no tapering to a point. The patent was held bad. (Rex v. Metcalf, 2 Stark. R. 249.)

The title was Certain improvements in the flageolet, whereby the fingering will be rendered more easy, and notes produced that were never before produced.' It appeared that only one new note was produced by the improved instrument, and this was held to

be a fatal objection. (Bainbridge v. Wigley, Parl. Rep. 197.)

The title was 'A new and improved method of drying and preparing malt;' but the invention specified was a process of producing a colouring matter for beer, by submitting malt, prepared in the ordinary manner, to a high temperature. This patent was likewise held bad. (Rex v. Wheeler, 2 B. & Ald. 345.)

A patent was obtained for an improved method of lighting cities, towns, and villages; but it appeared that the invention consisted in the improvement of an old street lamp. The title was held too general in its terms, and the patent could not be supported. (Cochrane v. Smethurst, 1 Stark. 205.)

Another patent held bad, by reason of having too general a title, was that contested in the case of Campion v. Benyon (1 Carp. Rep. 418). The patent was for A new and improved method of making double canvas and sailcloth with hemp and flax, or either of them, without any starch whatever;' but it appeared that double sailcloth had been made without starch before the patent, and the invention proved really to be a new method of preparing hemp and flax, with a view to its being woven into canvas and sailcloth.

The title of Felton's patent described the invention as a machine for giving an edge to knives, razors, scissors, and other cutting instruments; but the invention appeared, from the specification, not to be applicable to scissors, and the patent was adjudged to be void. (Felton v. Greaves, 3 C & P. 611.)

In Newall v. Elliott (10 Jur. N. s. 955; S. C. 13, W. R. 11), Pollock, C. B., stated that, when AttorneyGeneral, he had refused an application for a patent for An improvement in locomotion,' such a title being too general.

On the other hand, the titles in the following cases