Peters v. Owen. 66 "vertically arranged cylindrical steam chamber A which can be raised in a "vertical position from off the base D by a winch or crane by means of the ring B at top. To the lower rim is rivetted an annular flange C by means of "which it rests upon the base D, to which it may be secured by screw bolts 5" a a, with an intervening packing if necessary, for forming a steam tight "joint. "The steam chamber is provided with a branch pipe (not shown in the "drawings) by which it is connected to a steam generator, as also with a "water gauge and pressure gauge. The water condensing in the chamber is 10led off at bottom through a pipe b to a steam trap G from which it can be discharged from time to time. The moulds containing the material to be treated with steam are placed within this chamber, such moulds being "arranged as shewn in plan and elevation at Figs. 2 and 3. 66 66 "The size and arrangement of the moulds may be variously modified; by 15 " way of example, there are here shewn four main moulds of which two are, 66 66 66 say, 50 cm. wide, and 20 cm. high and the other two 90 cm. wide and respectively 30 cm. and 28 cm. high, while the length is determined by the length of the chamber, which in the present case is supposed to be 150 cm. "All the main moulds or boxes are made of galvanized or tinned sheet iron 20"secured by screw bolts at the edges. The principal moulds have to be so "made that when placed together they can be embraced by the rings F F Fig. "2, which may be of iron or steel. 25 66 66 66 6650 on. Assuming that one of the smaller moulds be laid down flat, it will present a cubic capacity of 150 cm. by 50 cm. by 20 cm. to be charged with the compound; if this capacity be divided in its width by the introduction of "two parallel plates running in the direction of the length, three equal compartments will be formed of 150 cm. length, 20 cm. height and about cm. width. These compartments are rammed as tightly as possible with "the mixture of caustic lime and sand, and are then closed by a cover screwed 30.. The mould or box, thus filled and closed, is now placed on end in the position shewn in Fig. 2 upon the base D of the steam chamber (the casing A having been removed) and the other moulds are then filled and treated in the same manner, after which the broad rings F Fig. 2 are placed round "them, these being made in two halves which are secured together by flanges 35" and screw bolts cc. As shewn at Fig. 2, there remain between the rings and the sides of the moulds spaces H H, which may be filled in with wooden or "metal filling pieces which serve to transmit the pressure exerted on the inner "sides of the moulds to the rings F. After these are fixed on, a strong 66 66 66 H Peters v. Owen. 66 plate J is placed upon the upper ends of the moulds and is secured to the "base D or to a plate placed thereon by bolts d d so as to offer a support to "the end surfaces of the moulds. The casing A is now placed over the "moulds thus tied together and is secured steam tight to the base, and high pressure steam is admitted to the chamber and maintained there for some days. The steam will penetrate through the crevices of the rings F and of "the moulds to the charges of the latter and will effect the slaking of the "lime which will then harden to a solid mass with the sand, forming the “artificial stone. 66 -The-steam-thus-operates-both as-the-agent-for-slaking-the-lime-and-for 10 -exerting-considerable pressure-against-the-outer-surfaces-of-the-moulds, in “-addition-to-the-support-afforded-by The rings F and bolts d which being "both subject merely to a tensile strain, are not liable to deformation. "Having now particularly described and ascertained the nature of this "invention and in what manner the same is to be performed, I desire to have 15 "it understood that I am aware that it is not novel to employ a steam “chamber containing high pressure steam in the manufacture of artificial "sandstone; or to submit a mixture of slaked lime and sand to the action "of high pressure steam in a closed chamber; or to mix and mould sand “and caustic lime in a dry state, and then to allow the mixture to absorb 20 "water or stram; or to submit a mixture of sand and lime in moulds to "pressure by applying weight thereto while subjected to the action of high pressure steam; and that I make no claim to any such apparatus separately; or to either of such processes separately, but that what I claim " is :—An apparatus for the production of artificial stone, consisting of a closed 25 "chamber within which moulds or boxes charged with a mixture of caustic "lime and sand are subject to high pressure steam, the moulds being so "placed together that they offer each other mutual support to withstand the "bulging strain produced by the expansion of the lime in slaking, while the "strain which is transmitted to the outermost surfaces is effectually resisted in 30 "the one direction by circular rings and in the other direction by stay bolts, "substantially as described." 66 66 The action came on for trial before Mr. Justice Bigham (sitting as an additional judge of the Chancery Division) on the 7th of July 1897, when he held that the patent was for an apparatus and not for a process, and that the 35 Defendant had not infringed.* The Plaintiff appealed from this decision. Bousfield, Q.C., M.P., and S. O. Buckmaster (instructed by J. and M. Solomon) appeared for the Appellants: Moulton, Q.C., M.P., Roger Wallace, Q.C., and J. C. Graham (instructed by Ashurst, Morris, Crip, and Co.) appeared for the 40 Respondents. Bousfield, Q.C., for the Appellant.-This is an appeal from Mr. Justice Bigham, who found that the Plaintiff's patent was for an improved apparatus for use in making artificial stone, and that the Defendant did not use an apparatus covered by the patent. I contend that, on a true construction of the 45 Specification, the Plaintiff's patent is for a method of making artificial sandstone. The sandstone is made by mixing caustic lime with sand, then placing the mixture in moulds, afterwards enclosing the moulds in a casing into which high pressure steam is admitted. My evidence shews that this process was new and beneficial. By the method described, the stone produced is of high quality, 50 *See 15 R.P.C. 663, Peters v. Owen. and it can be worked with hammer and chisel in the same way as natural stone is worked, a thing which could not be done with concrete or any artificial stone produced prior to the date of this patent. The reason of the high quality of the stone is that the caustic lime expands on setting, and the lime and sand 5 being enclosed in such a way as to resist expansion a thorough consolidation of the mass takes place while setting. Turning to the words of the Specification, it is quite true that the patentee describes a special form of mould boxes; but this is not his invention, it is only a detailed description of one way of carrying it out, and there is no reason that 10 his claim should be limited to the one form of apparatus which he shews. It is of course essential to the process that the moulds employed should be capable of resisting the expanding action of the lime. The disclaiming clause shews the different attempts which have been made before, On the uncontradicted evidence which my witnesses have given all these have 15 been unsuccessful methods, not having given a good artificial stone, Coming next to the claim, I contend that the true construction of this claim is that it is a claim for the process which I have described; there is no reason why the four last lines of the claim should be read as the important part of it. These words only mean that the boxes used are to be strong enough to resist 20 the pressure produced. The whole of the Specification supports the view that the essential feature of the invention is not the particular construction described but is the process consisting of mixing lime and sand in a dry state and then subjecting them to the action of high pressure steam in a box strong enough to resist the expansion of the lime. [Counsel then read the judgment of Mr. 25 Justice Bigham.] The Defendant uses a very strong box which he puts into a casing filled with water, which is then raised to a temperature of 300° Fahrenheit by means of steam pipes. The sides of the Defendant's rectangular box are strong enough to resist the pressure due to expansion, so that the packing case and moulds are 30 not both needed. I say that is exactly the process claimed by the patentee, the Defendant's process and box being an exact equivalent of what is shown in the Specification. Buckmaster followed-The issue is whether the patentee has claimed a process or an improved strong box. I submit it is not a box which is claimed. 35 If the patentee was claiming a box he would not have disclaimed the various processes shown in the disclaiming note. Counsel for the Respondents were not called on. LINDLEY, M.R.-It is impossible to construe this Specification in such a way as to make what the Defendant is doing an infringement. I am not going to 40 discuss the validity of the Defendant's patent, because we have nothing to do with that. The question is whether the Defendant is infringing the Plaintiff's patent. That must depend upon the true construction of the Plaintiff's patent. When I come to look at the Plaintiff's patent, I do not myself see much difficulty in finding out what is called the pith and marrow of the thing. It is 15 pretty obvious the pith and marrow, as I understand it, is the invention of an improved case into which you put moulds. It is not a patent for an improved mould at all. You assume you have got one or more moulds, and you put them in an improved case, and the whole patent is for the improved case. The case must be a strong one, the mould need not be. It does not say anything at all 50 about the strength of the mould; that is unimportant. It may be a very weak sided mould. The substance of the patent is, as I understand it, to have an improved case which will enable you to use weak moulds. What the Defendant is doing is this: The whole strength of the Plaintiff's apparatus being in the case itself, the Defendant does not put a weak mould into a strong case. 55 He makes a strong mould. To my mind it is a different idea and not an Peters v. Owen. infringement at all. It is a totally different way of looking at the thing. To construe this as equivalent to the patent, or the patent as being one for a strong mould would not, in my judgment, either be in accordance with the language or in accordance with the idea as described in the Specification, and when you come to look at the disclaimer on the part of the Plaintiff it seems to me to be 5 absolutely unarguable. Among the things disclaimed is:-"To submit a "mixture of sand and lime in moulds to pressure," and the question is whether lime there means dry caustic lime. I cannot conceive why it should not include it. I am of opinion that the view taken by the learned judge is right, that there was nothing in the point at all, and that this is not an infringement. RIGBY, L.J.—I am of the same opinion. I do not see why in that disclaimer, "a mixture of lime and sand " should not mean a mixture of caustic lime and sand, and I am told there is nothing in the evidence to alter it, as it stands upon the Specification. If so the claim is not for anything more than the mere apparatus, and I do not think it applies to anything more than a mere strong 15 case. VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, L.J.—I agree. 10 Lister and Company, Ld., and Others v. Dix Brothers. 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.-QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION. Before MR. JUSTICE WRIGHT. November 29th, and December 1st, 2nd, 15th and 21st, 1898. LISTER AND COMPANY, LD., AND OTHERS v. DIX BROTHERS. Patent.-Action for infringement.-Construction of Specification.—Infringe ment. 66 In 1888 Letters Patent were granted to L. and R. for "Improvements in the "manufacture of velvet," and in 1889 Letters Patent were granted to R. for Improvements in the manufacture of double pile fabrics," the first claim being 10 for a "double pile fabric each cloth of which has its wefts held between two sets "of ground warps and the pile warps tied into the ground by a single pick of 66 weft only and in which in addition the backs of the pile warps are covered by "a warp or warps floated over them substantially as described." In 1897 the owners of these patents commenced an action against a firm of D., for infringe15 ment of the same. In the course of the trial the case upon the 1888 patent was withdrawn. The Defendants contended that the word "float" as used in weaving of warps was a technical term signifying a passing over more than one weft, and alleged that the alleged infringing cloth had no floating warps and did not infringe the 1889 patent. 20 Held, that the word "float" in the Specification of the 1889 patent was used to describe the position of the backing warps relatively to the pile warps, and that the Defendants infringed. Judgment was given for the Plaintiffs on this patent, but for the Defendants on the 1888 patent. On the 22nd of December 1888, Letters Patents (No. 18,794 of 1888) were 25 granted t Samuel Cunliffe Lister and José Reixach for an invention of "Improvements in the manufacture of velvet." The Complete Specification claimed : 30 66 "1. The manufacture of pile fabrics woven double face to face, in which each "pile warp wherever it is held into each ground is caught by a single pick of "weft only and in which it is bound between two ground warps, one on either "side of it and both above the pick of weft and also between two other ground warps below the pick of weft substantially as described. 66 66 "2. The herein before described process of manufacture of pile fabrics consisting in first weaving a pile fabric double face to face with |