Taylor and Scott v. Annand and The Northern Press and Engineering "the type box and instantly screwed up, and the type box is then inserted in "the dovetail for it in the drum or pulley b. "The type box a is slided into the dovetail in the pulley or drum b and fits "sufficiently tight to be held therein firmly but if desired, a sliding catch is or may be used, the stem b of which is inserted in a hole in the drum b and 5 "round the stem there is a helical spring b2 which abuts against one end of the "hole for the stem at one end, and against a collar b3 screwed on the stem at "the other end. The stem has a turned up hook b' that slides in a slot formed "in the type drum near one edge, and the face of this hook b coming towards "and against the type box a is V shaped to enter a V notch in the edge of the 10 "type box a so that when the latter is forced into the dovetail space in the "drum b the hook end b1 of the bolt is forced back (the spring 3 on the stem "giving way) and then springs forward again when the type box is pushed "fully in and enters the V notch in its edge. The type box is released by "pressing upon the outer end of the stem or collar 3. There is a plate 3 15 "secured on the side of the drum b to act as a stop for the type box a to be "pushed against. "It will be understood that the face of the type in the box a is in a curve at "such radius from the axis of the drum b as will be equal to the radius of the "operating surface of the impression cylinder (e) or half its radius if the type 20 "box is to print twice for one revolution of the impression cylinders e and 66 so on. "The type drum b is made with a boss and set screws as shown so as to be "secured on any part of a shaft which is in bearings on the side frames. "The bearings for this shaft b" are formed in excentrics b which fit and can be 25 "rotated in holes for them in the side frames ƒ and each excentric bearing bo "has an arm 8 from it having a concentric slot for a set screw, to allow the "excentric to be adjusted and secured in the framing. The shaft b is geared up by a spur wheel b on its end with a wheel e1 on the shaft of the impression "cylinder e to make (in this example) two revolutions to one of the impression 30 cylinder e so that the type drum b prints twice for each revolution of the "impression cylinder e. 66 "grepresents the ordinary stereotype plate cylinder h the ordinary inking "rollers, h' the riding or distributing roller between the two inking rollers and " is the ordinary inking drum. The paper x being printed passes as shown in 35 "dotted line by the arrow round the impression cylinder e in the ordinary 66 manner. There is a shaft i extending between the side frames ƒ of the machine "and each end is free in a bearing formed in the end of a bracket which has "slots in it so as to be adjustable, and is then secured to the side frames ƒ. On "this shaft i an inking pulley is adjustable, and can be secured to the shaft i 40 "by screws. This pulley is adjusted to press upon and be rotated by contact "with the ordinary inking drum h2 and so as to ink the face of the type in the "box a on the drum b. The inking pulley is or may be sometimes supplied "with ink or colour from a separate ordinary inking drum or pulley, in which "case a different color of ink may be used, if desired from that used for inking 45 "the cylinder g. "In using our invention, the parts are all arranged and adjusted beforehand, " and so as to print upon the desired part of the sheet so that the moment the 66 type box a is filled and inserted in the drum b the machine may begin to "print these operations not requiring more than about five seconds of time. 50 "Having now particularly described and ascertained the nature of our said "invention and in what manner the same is to be performed-We declare that "what we claim is. "1. The combination and arrangement of mechanism for securing type or printing surfaces in a box or holder, substantially as herein before described 55 "and illustrated by the drawings. 2. The combination and arrangement of Taylor and Scott v. Annand and The Northern Press and Engineering Company, Ld. "mechanism for securing type or letter press printing surfaces in a box or "holder and the combination of the latter with a printing drum separate from "the main printing cylinder substantially as herein before described and "illustrated by the drawings. 3. The combination and arrangement of a 5" printing drum (b) with the mechanism of the ordinary main impression and "printing cylinders of endless web letter press printing machines, substantially "as and for the purpose herein before described and illustrated by the "drawings." The Defendants' apparatus consisted of an auxiliary drum, mounted on a 10 shaft so as to be moveable along the whole length of the shaft. The drum was constructed so as to carry a box containing linotype slugs, which were held in position by applying pressure to one of the side plates of the box by means of a screw. On the 11th of January 1898, John Edward Taylor and Charles Prestwich 15 Scott, in whom the Patent had become vested, commenced an action against R. C. Annand and The Northern Press and Engineering Company, Ld., claiming an injunction, damages, delivery up, and costs. By their Statement of Claim, delivered the 4th day of March 1898, the Plaintiff's alleged (1) that they were, by virtue of an assignment dated the 20 21st of December 1897, owners of the Patent No. 5470 of 1886; (2) that the Patent was valid; (3) that the Defendants had infringed the Patent in the manner set forth in the Particulars of Breaches. The Particulars of Breaches complained of were that the Defendants had at divers times, previously to the commencement of the action and subsequently Taylor and Scott v. Annand and The Northern Press and Engineering thereto, infringed the Plaintiffs' Patent by manufacturing, selling, and using apparatus for printing late news made in accordance with the invention described in the Specification of the Patent and claimed in the three claiming clauses thereof. In particular the Plaintiffs complained of the manufacture and sale by the Defendants at the place of business of the Defendant Company 5 at South Shields, in or about the middle of March 1897, of machinery made in infringement of the Patent. By their Defence, delivered the 29th of April 1898, the Defendants said :— (1) That they did not admit that the patent was vested in Plaintiffs; (2) that they had not infringed; (3) that the said John Henry Buxton, Davies 10 Braithwaite, and Mark Smith were not, nor were any of them, the first and true inventors or inventor of the alleged invention; (4) that the alleged invention was not new; (5) that the alleged invention was not useful; (6) that the alleged invention was not the proper subject-matter for a Patent; (7) that the Final Specification of the Patent described and claimed an inven- 15 tion larger than and different to the invention described in the Provisional Specification; (8) that the Final Specification of the Patent did not sufficiently describe and ascertain the nature of the said alleged invention nor the manner in which the same was to be performed. The Particulars of Objections were as follows:-(1) They repeated para- 20 graph 3 of the Defence; (2) repeated paragraph 5 of the Defence; (3) the alleged invention was not new. (a) The alleged invention had been published in this realm prior to the date of the Patent in the Specifications of the following Patents : : Taylor and Scott v. Annand and The Northern Press and Engineering (b) The alleged inventions forming the subject-matter of all the claims in the 5 final Specification of the Patent had also been published in this realm prior to the date of the Patent by the common general knowledge and common general use in the printing trade of the methods of securing type and of the auxiliary printing cylinders described and claimed in the Plaintiffs' Specification. (4) The alleged invention was not the proper subject-matter of Letters Patent. The 10 Defendants relied upon all the prior publications set out in paragraph 3, and alleged that in none of the claims in the Specification of the Plaintiffs' Patent was there disclosed any patentable improvement upon existing prior knowledge. The Defendants further alleged that the alleged inventions in the Plaintiffs' Specification were merely particular applications of old and well-known 15 mechanical devices in use in the printing trade, no invention being shown in the application. (5) The final Specification claimed, in Claim 1, an invention. applicable to printing surfaces which was larger than and different to the invention set out in the Provisional Specification. (6) The final Specification did not sufficiently describe and ascertain the nature of the invention and the 20 manner in which the same was to be performed in that it did not describe how the printing surfaces in the preceding paragraph were to be secured. By Reply delivered the 22nd of June 1898, the Plaintiffs joined issue with the Defendants on their defence. Astbury, Q.C., Roger Wallace, Q.C., and Graham (instructed by W. J. and 25 E. H. Tremellen, agents for Blair and Seddon, Manchester), appeared for the Plaintiffs. Moulton, Q.C., and Walter (instructed by J. H. and J. Y. Johnson, agents for W. J. S. and J. A. S. Scott, Newcastle-on-Tyne), appeared for the Defendants. Astbury, Q.C., opened the Plaintiffs' case.-The Plaintiffs are the owners of 30 the "Manchester Guardian" and have granted numerous licences for the use of this invention. In 1898 the Plaintiffs were compelled to grant a compulsory licence to the proprietors of "The Evening Chronicle" who were competitors of theirs in Manchester. The invention has been of great utility in the newspaper trade and is highly appreciated by newspaper proprietors. The invention 35 relates to the printing of late news. Previously a portion of the stereo cylinder was cut out and a fudge box inserted in the main stereo cylinder. This system was inconvenient, long, untidy, and uncertain. The Plaintiffs leave a blank space on the stereo cylinder and have an auxiliary printing drum on to which they fix their fudge box. This drum can be moved along the whole length of 40 its axle so as to print in any column of the paper as desired. The gearing of * 15 R.P.C. 749. Taylor and Scott v. Annand and The Northern Press and Engineering Company, Ld. the auxiliary axle is so adjusted that the drum completes one revolution for every impression of the paper and has the same surface speed as the main cylinder. (Counsel then read the Plaintiffs' Specification.) Claim 1 is for the fudge box and the arrangement for holding the type in the box in a cylindrical form. Claim 2 is the precise combination of Claim 1 and the drum, while 5 Claim 3 is a wider claim for the combination of the drum with an ordinary printing machine. The Defendants do not use ordinary type, as we do, but linotype slugs. They have, therefore, no need for the special form of rules described in the Specification. Still, they infringe all three claims, but certainly Claim 3. The following witnesses were called on behalf of the Plaintiffs :-James Swinburne, William Saunders Dow, James Yates Foster, George Binney Dibblee, Richard Edward Paine, John Robert Henry Smythe, and Thomas William Evans. 10 Moulton, Q.C., for the Defendants, submitted that the Plaintiffs had not made 15 out their case. If Claims 1 and 2 referred to the special forms shown then it was admitted that the Defendants did not infringe; if those claims were wide then there was no novelty. There is no distinction between Mewburn and the Plaintiffs except that Mewburn is general and Plaintiffs particular, that is to say for late news. There is no subject-matter, and I submit there is no case 20 for me to meet. [COZENS-HARDY, J., refused to stop the case.] The Plaintiffs' witnesses say that the novel features of the invention are smallness, cylindrical surface, and adaptability of position of the auxiliary drum. As to smallness, there is not a trace of this in the Specification. As a matter of fact the auxiliary drum must have the same surface speed as the main cylinder and must come 25 round once for each impression of the paper printed, therefore it must be a certain size. The cylindrical surface is old and is to be found in every fudge box. As regards the adaptability of position this is only removing that part on which it is not desired to have any type; there is no invention in doing that. As regards anticipation, if you take Duncan and Wilson's device and remove 30 that part which is novel you anticipate the Plaintiffs' Patent. Applegath's Specification of 1858 is also an anticipation. These were the best mechanisms of their day and it is absurd to say that they will not work. It is said that there was trouble to get the type on to a cylindrical surface, but Beach shows type on a cylindrical surface and shows conclusively how it is done. For the Defendants, William Warmer Beaumont, and the Defendant, Robert Cumming Annand (who was Managing Director of the Defendant Company), were called and gave evidence. 35 Walter summed up for the Defendants. At the date of the Plaintiffs' Specification the following things were old :-Use of type with a cylindrical 40 surface either parallel to the axis of the cylinder or circumferential; use of two cylinders; use of boxes to hold the type; use of tapered edges; all sorts of wedges, eccentrics, &c., for holding the type fast; use of an auxiliary cylinder for printing in blanks left by the main cylinder; the use of this auxiliary cylinder for printing late news. What is left in the Plaintiffs' 45 Specification that is new? [COZENS-HARDY, J.-It is said the idea of shifting the drum.] This could be done as described by Wilson's Specification of 1874, p. 5, 11. 13-19, and p. 8, 11. 18-21. Take Applegath's Specification, p. 3., ll. 17-25. Assume that the cylinder extends the whole breadth of the paper and that the type box extends the whole way. You can then put the type where you want it. 50 There is no subject-matter in removing the unused part of the auxiliary cylinder. Duncan and Wilson's apparatus is practical and is expressly for late news; it is free to be moved into any position. There cannot be a Patent for printing late news apart from other matter. Novelty of purpose is not subjectmatter for a Patent. Claims 1 and 2 are either very narrow, in which case we 55 do not infringe, or else they are wide, in which case they are invalid. As |