Taylor and Scott v. Annand and The Northern Press and Engineering Company, Ld. regards Claim 3, if it covers what the Defendants do, it covers Wilson of 1874, and Duncan and Wilson as well. It is admitted by the Plaintiffs' own letter that the invention was of little utility until the improvements embodied in the Plaintiffs' later Patent of 1888. [Counsel then commenced to read this Patent, 5 but on an objection by Astbury, Q.C., it was agreed not to go into it.] Astbury, Q.C., replied for the Plaintiffs. It is idle to question the utility of the invention when one considers the extent to which it has been adopted. The main claim is Claim 3 for the use of the auxiliary drum in connection with the main cylinder. As regards the Patent of 1888, it is merely an improve10 ment which cannot be used without the 1886 Patent. The fact that we subsequently discovered a better way does not imply absence of utility in the first invention. There is also ample subject-matter (Edison-Bell Phonograph Company v. Smith, 11 R.P.C. 389). Applegath, Duncan and Wilson, and Mewburn all desired to print late news, but were unsuccessful. The two 15 cylinders were well known, but in every case the second cylinder did part of the main printing. There was great difficulty in putting type on to a small cylinder. This is stated to be so in Duncan and Wilson's Specification. Before the days of stereotyping the cylinders were big and the face of the box was comparatively flat. Beach has a large cylinder and is quite impracticable. 20 [COZENS-HARDY, J.-I cannot see that your Patent is for a small cylinder.] The cylinder has to make one revolution for every impression. Therefore, if, as is usual, there are two impressions on the main cylinder, the auxiliary cylinder must be half that of the main cylinder. If Claims 1 and 2 are narrow they can be infringed by the use of an equivalent, which is what the Defendants 25 are doing. Claim 3 is for an auxiliary drum on a suitable axis which can be moved so as to print in any column. By this invention we have taught the world how to print late news in a better and simpler way than herebefore known. (On subject-matter Siddell v. Vickers, 7 R.P.C. 292; Hayward v. Hamilton, Griffin's P.C. 115; and Hinks v. Safety Lighting Company, L.R. 4 30 Ch. D. 607, were referred to.) All the anticipations alleged are paper anticipations, which must be very explicit to invalidate a Patent (Betts v. Menzies, 10 H.L.C. 117; Otto v. Linford, 46 L.T.N.S. 39; Gadd v. Mayor of Manchester, 9 R.P.C. 516 ; Hills v. Evans, 31 L.J. Ch. 457. Counsel also cited Thomson v. The American Braided Weir Company, 6 R.P.C. 518). The Defendants have attempted to 35 make a mosaic of paper anticipations. This will not affect our Patent. COZENS-HARDY, J.-This is an action by the assignees of Letters Patent granted in 1886 to Buxton and others, for "improvements in arrangements and "mechanism to facilitate the rapid application of type representing late news or "matter to, and the printing of the same by, newspaper printing machines." The 40 Plaintiffs seek an injunction and consequential relief in respect of an alleged infringement of the Letters Patent. The Defendants, as is usual, raise every conceivable defence, but substantially the questions which I have to consider are whether the alleged invention was proper subject-matter for Letters Patent, whether the alleged invention was new, and whether the Defendants have 45 infringed. It has been proved to my satisfaction that the Plaintiffs' invention, although not at first of much pecuniary value, became at a later period largely used, but almost, if not quite, universally, with a modification introduced in 1888 by a subsequent Patent which I have now not directly to consider. The object of 50 the invention, as appears in the Specification itself, is to meet a want felt by the publishers of newspapers, and especially of evening newspapers, of a rapid means of inserting late news which has come to hand after the stereos have been fixed on the main printing cylinders. It is a common knowledge that in the earlier editions of evening papers there is a blank space left for late news, 55 and the Plaintiffs' invention provides for filling up this blank space by means of an auxiliary roller or drum, the surface speed of which is identical with the 66 66 Taylor and Scott v. Annand and The Northern Press and Engineering Company, Ld. surface speed of the main printing cylinder, in which auxiliary roller a box of type, having a circular face, is fastened in such a manner that it prints the vacant space left in the earlier editions. The Plaintiffs' invention also provides for moving this drum along the shaft so that it may be placed in any position in which it may be required for printing. The material parts of the Plaintiffs' 5 Specification are the following:-Page 3 of the Specification is as follows: "In newspaper printing new editions containing late news or matter is "commonly added by cutting out portions from the stereo plates and inserting "in the space thus made the type representing the late matter; but this takes 66 time, and the object of our invention is to be able to add late news and print 10 "it in as little time as possible after its receipt. Our invention consists in "combinations and arrangement sof mechanism as hereinafter described. The "type is or may be ordinary type, and we arrange it when set up into lines "between thin metal rules which are thicker on one end than the other; the "ends of the metal rules are or may be notched to fit ribs, or may have 15 "projections to fit recesses formed in or on the ends of a boss, into which the "type and rules are placed or slided, and are secured by a screw or other arrangement acting in the lengthway of the rules or lines of type. The screw "is or may be in a part secured to the box, and the end of the screw carries or may carry a plate to act upon the ends of the metal rules and type. The lines 20 "of type and metal rules are pressed together laterally by a screw or other arrangement, or by a screw lengthway of the box and a wedge or inclines, or "by one or two metal rules on the sides of the box made taper lengthway and placed one reversed to the other, so that when the lines and metal rules are "secured endways pressure is brought upon the metal rules tapered lengthways 25 "to cause them to compress the metal rules and type laterally at the same time. "The box of type, prepared as above described, is dovetailed on its exterior, "and is slided into a corresponding dovetail recess in a drum or pulley, and it "wedges therein, or it is or may be secured by a spring or other catch or bolt. "The pulley for the type box is mounted upon a shaft passing across the 30 "printing machine and rotates in suitable bearings on the framing. The type "pulley or drum is adjustable in any desired position in the lengthway of its "shaft, and is then secured by screws, so that the type carried by it can be "made to print upon any part of the sheet, either on the margin or upon spaces "left blank and imprinted upon by the stereo plate on the main printing or 35 "stereo cylinder. The type pulley or drum is arranged to come against and print upon the paper on the impression cylinder, and when it is used in "machines where two separate sheets are printing at each rotation of the stereo "cylinder, the type pulley is geared up with that cylinder to make two rotations " and impressions for each revolution of the stereo cylinder." Then again, at 40 page 5, line 30, it says: "The type is or may be formed of separate letters in "the ordinary form with the metal rules between each line as herein before explained, or in some cases, for instance to give the result of races, the names of the horses which are expected to run are set up in type and stereotyped in words or lines suitable to fit the type box, and when the result 45 "of the race is known the strips of stereotype are immediately arranged in "the required order and dropped into the type box and instantly screwed up, "and the type box is then inserted in the dovetail for it in the drum or "pulley ;" and at line 51, "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 50 "drum b as will be equal to the radius of the operation surface of "the impression cylinder," and so on. At page 6, lines 28 to 40, we have this : "Having now particularly described and ascertained the nature of our said "invention, and in what manner the same is performed, we declare that what "we claim is :-(1) The combination and arrangement of mechanism for 55 "securing type or printing surfaces in a box or holder substantially as herein 66 66 66 Taylor and Scott v. Annand and The Northern Press and Engineering 66 "before described and illustrated by the drawings." Those drawings referred to are Figs. 1 and 9. (2) The combination and arrangement of mechanism "for securing type or letterpress printing surfaces in a box or holder, and the "combination of the latter with a printing drum separated from the main 5" printing cylinder substantially as herein before described and illustrated by "the drawings." That, again, refers to Figs. 1 and 9. "(3) The combination " and arrangement of a printing dram (b) with the mechanism of the ordinary "main impression and printing cylinders of endless web letterpress printing "machines substantially as and for the purpose herein before described and 10" illustrated by the drawings." Upon the construction of this Specification the following observations arise :The first claim is plainly a claim for the special boxes, Figures 1 and 9, and nothing more, and for the reasons hereinafter stated I think it is reasonably clear that the boxes used by the Defendants are not an infringement. The 15 second claim is for the arrangement of one or other of these special boxes on an auxiliary cylinder, and otherwise as described, but there is no infringement of this claim unless one or other of the boxes is used. The third claim gave rise to a considerable amount of discussion. At first sight it seems identical with the second claim, but upon the whole I adopt the view of the Plaintiffs, 20 that according to its true construction the third claim is for a printing drum arranged to slide in an axle so as to print into any column, or any part of a column, and constructed for the reception of a box holding type, or stereo, or engraved blocks readily attachable and detachable, and used therewith for printing late news. In short, I think it claims the use in combination with an 25 auxiliary cylinder capable of being moved along an axle of any suitable type holder (using that word in the most general sense) producing the same results as the two special boxes referred to in the first claim. And the Plaintiffs' case rests substantially upon this third claim. I may deal very briefly with Claim 1. It was faintly contended by Counsel 30 for the Plaintiffs that the box J.S.D. 2 used by the Defendants was an infringement of either Fig. 1 or Fig. 9 in the Plaintiffs' Patent, but Mr. Swinburne, at Question 35, stated that, assuming the narrow construction of Claim 1 to be that which I have held to be the right construction, the Defendants do not infringe, and when he was further pressed, at Questions 270 and 271, he declined 35 to say that in his opinion the Defendants' box was within the first claim. I do not propose to refer to the other evidence on this point, but I am satisfied that the Defendants' box, used as it is with linotype slugs and fastened as it is in a mode wholly different from that shown in the Plaintiffs' Specification, cannot be regarded as an infringement of Claim 1. 40 It remains, however, to consider Claim 3. It is necessary to consider to what extent, in whole or in part, the combination was novel. The use of two cylinders, one of which is necessarily auxiliary to the other, for printing was undoubtedly old. The use of loose type, as distinct from stereo plates, for a cylindrical printing surface was undoubtedly old, although I think there were 45 considerable difficulties in the way of a satisfactory adjustment of such type. Hill's Specification of 1835 and Little's Specification of 1853 show that the idea was present to the minds of persons engaged in the printing trade, and this applied to type to be set up round the surface of the printing cylinder as well as to type to be set up longitudinally or in a line with the axis of the 50 printing cylinder. The use of boxes of type called "fudge boxes," for the purpose of insertion of late news in a stereo cylinder, was also undoubtedly old; but I do not think that, prior to 1886, there had been discovered any means of holding type in a box with a circular face as convenient as that described in the Plaintiffs' Patent. Under these circumstances, it is alleged by 55 the Plaintiffs, and denied by the Defendants, that the Plaintiffs' invention was in 1886 novel, and the case as to this depends almost entirely upon certain 66 66 66 Taylor and Scott v. Annand and The Northern Press and Engineering Company, Ld. prior Patents, and upon evidence which has been given by the witnesses on each side. The Defendants rely, not upon prior user, but upon prior publication in certain Letters Patent, of which I propose to refer to some only. I think the most important Specification is Applegath of 1858. It is manifest that he had in mind the importance of introducing fresh matter without interfering 5 with the large printing cylinder. In his Specification at page 3, line 3, be says "This invention has for its object improvements in printing machinery, "and such improvements are applicable to machines where the type or printing "surfaces are fixed on a cylinder, and where the paper is fed into the machines "in the form of sheets." Then, after referring to the proposed lessening of the 10 size of the cylinders, he says, at line 17:-"When working with such descrip"tions of printing machines I, in some cases, apply a small roller or rollers with type or printing surfaces thereon, together with proper inking apparatus, to "each of the printing rollers or cylinders; in this way I am enabled, while printing the main portion of the sheet by the large type or printing cylinder 15 as heretofore, to introduce, for instance, a heading in a different colour, or, in "fact, any matter which it is desirable to introduce, and this introduced matter "may be changed without interfering with the form on the large printing cylinder." At the top of page 4, lines 1 and 2, he refers to "the central 66 cylinder having upon it the form either in taper types or made with 20 stereotyped plates.' At page 6, lines 18 to 33, he describes the diagram, Fig. 6, "to show how small auxiliary printing rollers may be arranged in "combination with the roller which receives the black ink impression, so that "the title of a newspaper or the heading of other matter may be printed in "three colours. The circumference of the central cylinder in this case is 25 "supposed to be 60 inches, and the impressing rollers 30 inches." Then, a little further on, he says that "the carriage A* which supports the auxiliary "printing rollers (which have toothed wheels working into the wheel of C) "and their apparatus for supplying the ink or colour is hinged to the main "frame of a machine at A. c is one of two shapes of cams, which are fixed 30 upon the central cylinder B, and as it revolves they act against the friction "rollers d, which causes the carriage A* to revolve a little upon its spindle or "hinge A, so as to press the rollers e e against the sheet of paper"; and in his claim, at page 7, line 25, he says:-"What I claim is the use in printing "machines, where the type or printing surfaces are fixed on a cylinder, and 35 "where the paper is fed into the machine in detached sheets, of printing rollers "smaller in circumference than the length of the sheets of paper which the "machine is calculated to print; I also claim the application of small auxiliary "printing rollers, as herein described." Fig. 6 shows clearly the arrangement described in the Specification. 66 66 66 40 Now Mr. Swinburne, the Plaintiffs' expert witness, describes what, in his view, was the Plaintiffs' real invention at Questions 58 to 67, which I will read :-"Would you kindly tell his Lordship then what was the invention"? (that is the Plaintiffs' invention). "I repeat what I said—that the invention is having an auxiliary printing drum, which was arranged to take late news to 45 "be put in type, and put where you wanted it. Q. It is not an invention using "it for late news; you have told us that already?-A. No; but it was an inven"tion working out something that could be used for late news. Q. Will you "kindly tell his Lordship what it was he worked out?-A. As I say, he "worked out a small auxiliary drum. Q. Smallness is not the point, is it?— 50 "A. One of the points. Q. Smallness is a part of the invention; what else ?— "A. Cylindrical surface. Q. Cylindrical surface is implied in its being an "auxiliary cylinder, is it not?-A. Yes, if you use the word strictly, but the "term auxiliary cylinder' was used previously where the surfaces were not cylindrical so I would rather stick to late news drum.' Q. I will take your 55 "statement. Smallness was one thing, cylindrical surface another; was there 66 . 66 66 66 66 66 66 Taylor and Scott v. Annand and The Northern Press and Engineering anything more?-A. I think position-being able to put it into any column-was "an important point. Q. You mean putting the type into position?-No. You can move that thing along the axle so as to put it where you like. Q. I will "take that as the third for the moment ?-A. Well, I think that is enough. 5 Q. Is that all ?-A. That is all that I can think of." That is to say, the three things are smallness, cylindrical surface, and capability of being put into position. In cross-examination, Mr. Swinburne says that Applegath's Patent of 1858 could be made to work with the present knowledge, but that Applegath himself did not know how to do it. At Question 127, in cross10 examination on Applegath, this is put to him:-"Applegath does it by a "small auxiliary cylinder. Will you kindly tell his Lordship what the Plaintiff "does besides that which Applegath does?-A. Applegath does not, you see. "He only thought he would like to. This is simply a paper specification. The "idea of the late news drum is not there. He has got his type arranged round 15 "the drum so that the columns run axially, it is a different thing altogether. (Mr. Astbury): My learned friend reads one description, then he refers to a "figure as to which there is a totally different description. (Mr. Moulton): I am going to read the description. Now come, Mr. Swinburne. Do you tell "his Lordship that Applegath's will not do it ?-A. Certainly not. Q. It will 20 not do it?—A. It could be made with the present knowledge, if anyone tackled "Applegath; but Applegath could not do it. Q. You say that Applegath put "forward this construction in this elaborate Specification, and that it would not "work?-A. No, it would not work to do what the Plaintiff does. Q. Would "it work to what Applegath says?-A. Not as regards putting type into those 25" wheels. There is no means provided. Q. No means provided. I suppose at "that time they could put type on to cylinders ?-4. Well, they tried very "hard but they were not very successful. Q. At this very time was not "The "Times' printed off rotary cylinders from these works?-A. From Applegath's, "very likely. Q. Putting aside the difficulty of putting type on to cylinders, 30 if it existed, assume people could put type on cylinders, now will you tell me "what it is that the Plaintiff does which Applegath did not do ?-A. Of course, if you assume that Applegath did it, then the Plaintiff did nothing more; but "to my mind Applegath does not do it." I think it better to refer to the evidence of the Plaintiffs' expert witness rather than to the evidence of Mr. 35 Beaumont, the Defendants' expert witness, who is clearly of opinion that Applegath's Patent was an anticipation, and that any competent workmen at that time could have made it operate satisfactorily. I will not do more than refer to Question 1352 where he says:-"It has been suggested that these auxiliary cylinders are unsuitable for type?-A. It has. Q. What do you say 40 as to that?—A. I do not know why they should be. If you have wedge"shaped type, and if you have either of the several systems of holding that type "in-described by several of those to whom you have already referred, there is "no difficulty whatever in fixing type into a cylinder of 5 or 6 inches diameter." There are other patents which I do not propose to consider in detail, but 45 Wilson's of 1874, Duncan and Wilson of 1879, and Mewburn of 1885, are all, I think, to be regarded as important on the point of prior publication, 66 66 It was contended by the Counsel for the Plaintiffs that Applegath's Specification did not contemplate printing by means of type, but only by means of engraved blocks, and that it was, in short, nothing more than an adaptation 50 of the well-known method of calico printing by separate cylinders. I can find no such limitation on the face of the Specification. On this point I adopt the view of Mr. Beaumont at Questions 1576 to 1582, where, in cross-examination, he says: "There is nothing whatever shown in the Specification as to putting "any boxes of type on either of them ?-A. No, he speaks of that. Q. But it is 55 "not suggested?-A. He merely mentions that they are to carry the type." Then he is referred to the Specification: "Where do you find a single suggestion |