The Palmer Tyre, Ld. v. The Pneumatic Tyre Company, Ld. Shaw's Specification related to traction engine wheels. It shows that fastening steel armatures to a wheel by a wire or cord on either side was old, see Fig. 7. Then Latta's American Specification showed, in Figs. 1 and 5, a solid tyre clamped down to the rim by three continuous wires, which had slight waves in them to 5 enable them to be stretched sufficiently for putting them over the edge of the rim. Starley's Specification of 1887 also showed, in Figs. 1 and 2, one wire threaded through the tyre and clamping it on the rim. Also there is Lake, of 1887. Therefore, the use of wires as a means, by their inelasticity, of fastening a tyre to a rim was well known. Up to this point no tyre had been made which 10 gave facility of detachment for the purpose of getting at the inside of the tyre in the event of a puncture. Thomas' invention was to split the outer cover and to divide it between the rim and the cover; he might or might not have an inner tube, but if he did not have one, he had to make the joint between the rim and the cover air-tight. The pith and marrow of his invention was dividing 15 the tube into two parts or constructing it out of two parts, one being the rim and the other a flat band of canvas and rubber which, when inflated, would have a cylindrical form. If this breadth of construction is given to Thomas, there will not be much question as to infringement. [The Specification was then read.] First, Thomas' invention requires a sheet of flexible material, 20 impervious to liquids, which is caused to assume a cylindrical form in its engagement with an angular felly, which is provided with grooves, &c. The first branch of his invention is to take, not a tube, but a sheet of flexible material, and to make that engage with the edges of the rim so as to form a cylinder. In the second branch the edge of the flexible material is to be held 25 by the edges of the felly. The drawings are put forward as diagrammatic indications of some forms of his invention. Fig. 9 is not claimed. Fig. 10 comes within the second branch, in which he does not mention a sheet of flexible material. Figs. 12, 14, 16, and 17 are forms of the first branch of his invention. In Fig. 12 the groove is countersunk. The edge of the sheet is not 30 merely to be placed in the groove, but held to it by cement or a suitable fastening; a circumferential wire was known to be a suitable fastening. In Fig. 14 the inextensibility of the band keeps the edges in place, it does not rely on pinching. In Fig. 16 there is pinching. The disclaiming note is important; it should be read into each claim. It mentions "the tyre or tyre cover," according 35 as an inner tube is not or is used. Particularly it says, held within grooves, and not by grooves. Fig. 9 is disclaimed inferentially. Then, coming to the claims, there is no reference in them to the drawings, and the Patentee is not limited to the latter. In Claim 1 the words are "secured between," not "secured by," the flanges. I also draw attention to Claim 5. In the alleged infringement 40 (F.J.B.1) there is a sheet of flexible material formed of canvas and rubber; there is a wire in each edge of it, and the edges are enlarged by the presence of the wires, and lie in grooves in the edges of the rim. [The Defendant Company's advertisement was referred to.] Thomas was the first to divide the tyre into two parts, one part being a sheet of flexible material engaging with 45 the edges of the rim. Although the Defendants' tyre may be an improvement, it is none the less an infringement. As to the time which has elapsed since the Patent, that is explained. Pneumatic tyres did not come into considerable use until 1894. On the 27th of March 1893, Thomas assigned the Patent to Dowsett, and on the 4th of August 1893. Dowsett assigned it to The Cycle Rubber 50 Works, Ld.; this Company went into liquidation, and the liquidator assigned the Patent to Palmer Tyre, Ld. (not the present Company) in February 1895. For some time Mr. Du Cros, one of the Defendants, had an option of purchase. In June 1895, the Patent was assigned to the Plaintiffs. In November 1895, an agreement was entered into between the Plaintiffs and The India Rubber 55 and Gutta Percha and Telegraph Works, Ld. Then in May 1896, an action The Palmer Tyre, Ld. v. The Pneumatic Tyre Company, Ld. was brought by the present Plaintiffs against the present Defendants, but in consequence of the Particulars of Objections delivered we discontinued that action and afterwards amended the Patent. The anticipations alleged are Thomson and the two Dunlop Specifications, but only Dunlop, No. 10,607, of 1888, can be relied on; the other was not published. On the construction of 5 Thomas which I have put forward, it is not anticipated by Thomson; and in Dunlop there are none of the characteristic features of Thomas. Sir Frederick J. Bramwell, Professor J. A. Ewing, and Mr. A. J. Boult were called as witnesses for the Plaintiffs on Thomas' Patent. Moulton, Q.C, opened the Defendants' case.-It is important first of all to 10 thoroughly understand the Defendants' tyre. There has been enormous use of it. It has one characteristic which describes it, namely that it is self sustained. The whole tension is resisted independently of the rim by the tyre itself having inextensible edges. There is no outward tension on the rim; for there to be such a tension there must be some engagement with the rim ; but 15 there is none in Welch. This independence of the rim is shown by the case of the wire being outside the rim. It makes no difference whether the edges of the rim, when the wire is inside, are vertical or flaring outwards or V-shaped. The object of the form which we use is that the wire may be put on concentrically. The tension pulls the wire outwards all round and it never 20 has any support from the rim. The shoulders have no function in keeping the tyre on. The meaning of the word "groove "in Thomas' Specification is a question of construction; the Defendants' advertisements are immaterial to it. As to the state of public knowledge in 1889, the state of public knowledge as limiting invention is a different matter from the state of public knowledge as influencing 25 construction. Here there is little in the state of public knowledge which will guide the Court in construction; except that hose-pipe pneumatic tubes were known. If Thomas' Patent claimed a sheet held on anyhow and blown out, it would be anticipated by Thomson. [Thomas' Specification was then read and commented on.] The invention relates to details of construction and mode of application 30 "and use." The sheet of material is to hold the fluid and is to "engage; the Patentee meant the sheet to hold the fluid by taking a cylindrical form through engagements with the hollow rim, which has grooves, slits, recesses or sunken channels in the walls thereof. There is nothing of discovery in this Specification, but only a choice of mechanical devices. The part of the 35 invention which is for making a tube partly of metal and partly of the sheet of flexible material has never been used. The second part of the invention relates to the pipe form. Fig. 9 is not now claimed, but it shows superficiality of thought on the part of the inventor. In Fig. 11 there is the engagement of longitudinal ribs with grooves. Figs. 12 and 14 are the two 40 really important ones. In Fig. 12 the enlarged edges are to go into the grooves and be supported there by cement or other material. In the sheet part of the Patent the edges of the sheet are to go into and engage in grooves. The pins, &c. are merely as additional securities; there must be cement to make the tyre air-tight. The typical form to which the disclaiming note limits the 45 invention is Fig. 12 with a certain latitude of shape and arrangement. Fig. 17 is a special form of Fig. 12 for certain purposes. In Fig. 14 there is a ring or distance piece between the edges of the sheet, then a felly on each side, and the whole is clamped together; the Patentee thought rightly that he would get an air-tight joint in that way. Fig. 16 cannot be made in the way the Patentee 50 says. In the sheet form of the invention the Patentee has described the construction of a wheel in which the fluid is contained in an impervious sheet engaged in the grooves of a metal felly, so as to form a tube capable of inflation: also a mode whereby with a composite wheel one may clamp the edges, having enlargements incapable of passing through slots, and getting an air-tight joint 55 The Palmer Tyre, Ld. v. The Pneumatic Tyre Company, Ld. and Others. by means of the clamping. The characteristic is the compound tube capable of retaining air. The disclaimer means that Thomas' enlargements are to operate with grooves, he intimates clearly that he is taking an engagement of enlargements in grooves. His notion was to get a joint by the conformation of the edge of the 5 tyre and the conformation of the rim. He wished to make a composite tube partly metal and partly rubber. This is not practicable in ordinary use. The equivalent of a groove for the purpose of infringement must be something which acts in the same way as Thomas' groove. In Fig. 14 the slits would not be called grooves, but they are equivalent because they are openings through which 10 the enlargements cannot pass. That is the essential of the groove so far as the action Thomas wants of it. As to the Claims-the first, second and third relate to a wheel, they have to do with Figs. 16 and 17; Claims 4 and 15 relate to Figs. 12 and 14; and Claim 6 relates to Fig. 11. Claims 4 and 5 both relate to Fig. 12. There is no claim for Fig. 14, unless it comes in as an equivalent, as 15 being a composite felly in which there is provision for grooves. In Claim 1 there are intended to be two flanges on each side, and therefore refers to Figs. 16 and 17. Claim 2 seems to be mere repetition. Claim 3 simply mentions in addition the tube and cock, which must of course exist in all. Taking the alleged infringing tyre, contour of section is immaterial to it. The edges need 20 not be enlarged. It works by the inextensibility of the wire. The edge might be the thinnest part. Secondly, the existence of grooves, so far as keeping on the tyre is concerned, is equally immaterial. The tyre will stay on with a V-shaped or semi-circular or rectangular rim. Then the edges do not "pass "into grooves"; that means go right into and lie in grooves-not merely lean 25 against the side of them; they are not within or held within the grooves in Thomas' sense. He meant grooves with approximating lips. Fig. 14 is chosen by the Plaintiffs as the nearest to ours, but there is no clamping in the Defendants' tyre, and no connection with the rim. In Fig. 14 a sheet is pinched between the rim c and the outer felly. The Defendants have not 30 the same parts performing the same functions, indeed they have not even the same parts. The following witnesses were called on behalf of the Defendants, namely, Messrs. Dugald Clerk, C. V. Boys, and F. C. Baisley. Moulton, Q.C., summed up the Defendants' case.-The general tenour of the 35 whole Specification must be considered. Without going through it again, I shall submit shortly what is I think conclusive on the point of non-infringement. The Patentee limits himself to a class; the enlarged edges which pass into or are held within grooves or their equivalents are the essentials of the class; they characterise it. The edge in the Defendants' tyre does not pass 40 into and is not held within a groove. One side of it leans against one wall of the groove. "Held" means by a gripping action, with or without other assistance. The disclaiming note limits Thomas to this. I do not say putting an inner tube into Thomas would take one outside his Patent, but if one has a structure that will not work without an inner tube, one is not within Thomas. 45 There is nothing in the alleged infringement which tends to give air-tight tubes except the inner tube. Thomas' grooves and enlargements grip and caulk, the Defendants' do neither. Also in the Welch tyre, there is no grip or pull on the rim, it is self sustaining. I submit that the Defendants are entirely outside the spirit and the language of the Specification. Non-infringement stands out so 50 markedly, that I shall not deal with the other points. Terrell, Q.C., in reply.-The real question on this Patent is the scope of the Specification. If it is limited to the case of a groove which grasps an enlargement, there is no infringement. If the invention is for a tyre formed of a sheet of flexible material having engagements with the edges of the rim and held there 55 by enlargements or other means, then I submit that the Patent is clearly infringed, The Palmer Tyre, Ld. v. The Pneumatic Tyre Company, Ld. and Others. It is true that the invention is, as stated, for details of construction, but it is a pioneer invention. The Patentee for the first thing made a tyre cover out of a sheet of flexible material, and for the first time made the tyre cylindrical by its engagement with the rim. This is in a sense a detail of construction. In Moore v. Thomson, 7 R.P.C. 325, the invention was for details of construction, 5 which were in themselves pioneer inventions. I do not say that the thickness of the edge of the Defendants' tyre operates in the same way as Thomas' enlargements. Thomas obtained the possibility of getting at the inside of the tyre. The fastening was not the point of his invention, the point of it was the division of the tube into two parts. It is said that it is a barren Patent. 10 [WILLS, J.-I shall not find against you on utility.] The question is what was the invention, and one must look at the state of knowledge of the time to see what the advance was that Thomas made. Reading Claim 5 and the disclaimer together every word applies to the Defendants' tyre, except as to the enlargements. [WILLS, J.-The disclaimer says that the invention is 15 confined to tyres having ribs or enlargements.] In the case of Moore v. Thomson the claims in the Specification were very narrow. Since Curtis v. Platt the Courts have gone behind the claim and inquired what was the substance of the invention. [WILLS, J.-Have they ever gone behind an express disclaimer?] The Courts have refused to say that because a 20 thing would not be an anticipation, therefore it is not an infringement. [WILLS, J.-Did not the Patentee consider the enlargements or ribs to be of the essence of his invention ?] One must look at the Specification as a whole, in the first description he does not say that. [WILLS, J.-Does not the disclaimer limit that part?] Words of disclaimer ought to be read strictly. 25 Looking at the functions of Thomas' enlarged edge the Defendants use an equivalent. The disclaimer does not prevent the Court from looking to see what the pith and marrow of the invention really is. The Patentee does not disclaim every equivalent of an enlarged edge. I submit that this is not a Patent for the fastening, and that it is infringed. In Fig. 14 there is a hooking 30 action. The ring C is in tension as the Welch wire is. In the Defendants' tyre C is split into two parts, namely, the wires, one of which is put on each side. In Plimpton v. Spiller, L.R. 6 Ch. D. 412, James, L.J., said that a claim was in the nature of a disclaimer; and in many cases the Courts have held that there may be infringement although the thing taken does not come within the 35 exact words of the claim. Moulton, Q.C.-A Patentee is held strictly to a disclaimer, Seed v. Higgins, 8 H.L.C., 550; Daw v. Eley, L.R. 3 Eq. 496, and Curtis v. Platt, L.R. 3 Ch. D., 135. In Moore v. Thomson no new rule of interpretation was laid down. The claim there was a very special one. As to Trigwell's Patent, 40 Terrell, Q.C., opened the Plaintiffs' case on this Patent, referring to the pleadings, and continued.-Welch's Patent was not published at the date of Trigwell, but it is alleged that there was a prior grant to Welch and Wilson of the same invention; at the same time infringement is denied. [Moulton, Q.C.— 45 If Trigwell's Patent has a limited interpretation put on it, the Defendants do not infringe, but, if not, then the other defence comes in.] The substantial case is the prior grant to Welch. We allege that Welch's Patent is invalid on the same grounds as those set up in the previous cases on that Patent, but this case may go to the House of Lords. Trigwell has been amended. I will 50 first read the Provisional Specification. [Moulton. Q.C., mentioned Moser v. Marsden, 13 R.P.C. 24, as to referring to an unamended Complete Specification.] On the right construction of Lord Watson's speech, it may be referred to for assistance in construing, if the language of the amended Specification is ambiguous. In the Complete Specification, Figs. 1 and 2 are diagrammatic 55 The Palmer Tyre, Ld. v. The Pneumatic Tyre Company, Ld. drawings of the same thing. In Fig. 3 the channels are outside the line of the cover, in Fig 4 they are inside, and in Fig. 2 they are partly outside and partly inside it. Claim 2 refers to strengthening the cover with wire gauze or a substitute. Our case is that Welch's Provisional Specification did not 5 contemplate pneumatic tyres at all, and in his Complete Specification he included Triguell's invention, which had been put on the market. We do not allege that this was done intentionally. There is disconformity in Welch; if, however, it is good, there is a prior grant to him. I will call evidence as to infringement and to supplement the evidence as to the question of the validity 10 of Welch, given in the Pneumatic Tyre Company, Ld. v. The East London Rubber Company. Sir Frederick J. Bramwell and Messrs. Swinburne and Hall were called as witnesses for the Plaintiffs. Moulton, Q.C., opened the Defendants' case.-At this stage the question on 15 this Patent turns solely on that of the construction of the Specification. If it be construed according to my contention, I shall not say that it is invalid, but, if construed as the Plaintiffs contend, it is invalid. Bartlett's Patent for the Clincher tyre became part of the knowledge of the time at once. It had a sheet of material bent and put into a rim having dove-tailed edges; Bartlett realised 20 that it might be used for pneumatic tyres and so showed it in his Specification. When all the bicycle trade knew of the Clincher, putting a tube into or under a sheet tyre that had been used before could not be invention. Trigwell invented a special device for a rim and tyre interacting. He was too late for a general claim. The rim had two forms in his 25 Provisional, according to the means adopted to fix the tyre in position; one is the U-shaped channel, in which case the cover has an enlarged head and the tyre is fixed by turning over the edge of the flange or by a wire. The other form had vertical flanges and the tyre is pinned with external rings. This, together with the wire gauze, represents all that Trigwell had discovered 30 at the date of his Provisional Specification. At the date of the Complete Specification, in which the vertical flange is dropped, Welch was published. Trigwell never realised air-locking, he made the fastening on of the wires independent of inflation of the tyre; he merely tied on his tyre. [The Complete Specification was then read.] With a U-shaped channel to the rim the tyre can be held on 35 by a wire over the edge, but not so if it be without a U-shaped channel. Such a channel is the essence of Trigwell's device, it is shown in all the figures. Fig. 2 is for a special mechanical device, every feature of which, except one, is in Thomas. Trigwell will not hold on without the U-shaped groove. It is said that one side of the groove may be dispensed with, but it was always made with the U-shaped 40 groove. Unless this is of the essence of it, what are the limits of it? If it is of the essence of it, the Defendants do not infringe. Their cover is not bound down, it depends for its success on being free. The rim only restrains a lateral movement. Triguell, when drawing his Complete Specification, could not claim simply the holding on, so he claims the holding on and the strengthening. 45 On a fair construction, the part as to strengthening would not be taken to apply to a thing not novel, such as canvas. Canvas is not a material equivalent to wire gauze. The mention of it is omitted in the Complete Specification. Claims 3 and 4 are not infringed; the Defendants have no wire gauze or longitudinal channel, and Claim 2 is for a combination in which the tyre is protected 50 from puncture by wire gauze or its equivalent. Messrs. Dugald Clerk, Professor Boyes, and Mr. F. C. Baisley were called as witnesses for the Defendants. Moulton, Q.C., summed up the Defendants' case. With regard to the questions asked in the cross-examination of our witnesses, what is in Welch's 55 Patent is not relevant to the issue whether F.J.B2 is an infringement of Trigwell's |