Page images
PDF
EPUB

In Lang v. Gisborne, 31 L.J.Ch. 769 (1862), it is laid down: "A publication takes place when a person who is an inventor of any new discovery, either by himself or his agents, makes a written description of that and prints it in a book, and sends it to a bookseller to be published in this country. It is not necessary to sell a copy; the moment it is exposed for sale it is a publication."

And in Plimpton v. Spiller, L.R. 6 Ch.D. 425 (1877), « Brett, L.J., says, refering to a prior publication of an invention in a book: "It must not only be printed in a book, but that book must be placed in such a position and so used that you may fairly infer or assume that the contents of the book have become known to a sufficient number of people."

And in Stead v. Anderson, 2 Web. P.R. 147 (1846), quoted by Brett, L.J., above, Baron Parker laid down: "That the invention must become generally known in the sense that it has become known to the people in the trade, and the question with regard to that is, was the invention published and offered to the public to such an extent as that it was generally known among engineers or persons interested in the matter."

And "if the machine (the subject of an invention) be published in a book, distinctly and clearly described, corresponding with the description in the specification of the patent, although it has never been actually worked, that is a previous publication" (per Lyndhurst, L.C., in Househill Co. v. Neilson, I Web. P.R. 718 n. (1843)).

"It is not necessary that an invention should have been used by the public as well as known to the public" (per Lord Blackburn, in Patterson v. Gas Light and Coke Co., L.R. 3 App. Ca. 244 (1877) ).

As to what has been held a sufficient publication.
R. v. Arkwright, 1 Web. P.R. 64 (1785).

An invention previously described in a book which had been printed a third time held a sufficient publication to vitiate a subsequent patent.

Stead v. Williams, 2 Web. P.R. 142 (1843).

A patent for paving streets, &c., with wooden blocks. There had been a prior publication of a book concerning that subject, but unknown to the patentee. This was held sufficient to vitiate the subsequent patent.

Lang v. Gisborne, 31 L.J.Ch. 769 (1862).

A French book, describing the invention, exposed for sale and published openly in England, four copies

of which were sold, was held a sufficient publication
to vitiate the subsequent patent.

Patterson v. Gas Light and Coke Co., L.R. 3 App. Ca. 240
(1877).

A patent for improvements in purification of coal gas, the improvement becoming known to Patterson, the patentee, in his official capacity as one of three referees under City of London Gas Act, 1868, and embodied in their report published afterwards. Held immediately it was known to the referees, and embodied in their report, they being public officers, and the report belonging to the State, the matter became the property of the public, and they were bound to make it known, and consequently there was a prior publication sufficient to void a subsequent patent. United Telephone Co. v. Harrison, L.R. 21 Ch.D. 720 (1882).

The invention had been previously described in a scientific journal written in German, illustrated by drawings, and published abroad. A copy of the journal was in the Patent Office Library, also another in the Institute of Civil Engineers in London, but entered under heading of "Journals." A telegraph engineer deposed that he could understand the description of the invention in the journal by the drawings, although he was ignorant of German. This was held a sufficient publication of a prior invention before the date of the patent, and was not questioned on appeal.

As to what has been held not a sufficient publication.
Re Heuretop's Patent, I Web. P.R. 553 (1836).

A book containing a description of an expired
French patent published in France, a copy of which
had been sent to the British Museum. If put in the
catalogue it was no doubt a publication, but the con-
firmation of the patent seems to have been allowed on
other grounds.

Plimpton v. Spiller, L.R. 6 Ch.D. 422 (1877).

A book from America, describing a patent, which was received at the Patent Office Library in London, but not put in the catalogue, not being known to the librarian, and was afterwards found on a shelf in a public corridor there, was held not to be a sufficient publication to void a subsequent patent. Where an inventor claims two or more separate inven- Two inventions tions in his specification, and one of them is already known, in one patent.

S. 33.

such claim will vitiate the whole patent.
enacted by the Patents Act, 1883-

S. 33.

And it is now

Every patent may be in the form in the first schedule to this Act, and shall be granted for one invention only, but may contain more than one claim; but it shall not be competent for any person in an action or other proceeding to take any objection to a patent on the ground that it comprises more than one invention."

And it is the duty of the Examiner under section 9, subsection (1), to see that the complete specification does not claim more than one invention. But where any patent has been granted claiming more than one invention, although under section 33 no objection can be taken in any proceeding on that ground, yet if one of the inventions claimed is bad for want of novelty, that will be a valid objection against the patent, and vitiate it.

The following cases bear on this subject.

Hill v. Thompson, 2 Moore Exch. Rep. 424 (1818).

A patent for an improvement in smelting and working iron, and also for the application of lime in certain stages of the process to cure a disease common to iron. Held the second claim was for an invention already known, and although the first claim was good the patent was vitiated.

Brunton v. Hawkes, 4 B. & Ald. 551 (1833).

A patent for improvements in anchors, and also for a mooring chain. The anchor was held not novel, and although the mooring chain was novel the patent was vitiated.

Morgan v. Seaward, 2 M. & W. 544 (1837).

A patent for improvements in steam engines, and also improvements in machinery for propelling vessels. The improvement in steam engines was held bad for want of novelty; and although the second was good, the whole was invalidated by the first claim. Sugg v. Silber, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 493 (1877).

A patent for improvements in gas burners; also in the method of constructing the same. The method of casting and constructing being not new the patent was held vitiated thereby.

Henderson. Clippens Oil Co., Sc. Cas. 4th Ser. vol. 9, p. 232 (1881).

A patent for improvements in the destructive distillation of shale or other oil-yielding minerals, and in apparatus therefor. The use of hot residuum of shale for fuel was known before. The Court held the claim did not embrace two separate inventions, but the improvements in the distillation effected by means of the use of the apparatus in the way described; and that the plaintiff did not claim the use of the hot residuum of shale as fuel, which, if he had, that use being known before, would have vitiated his patent.

the invention

This case was affirmed on appeal (W. N. 1883, p. 33). But if an inventor claims in his specification an invention Where a part of and its parts, one of which is already known, if that part claimed is not is to be used only in conjunction with the whole invention, new. and subsidiary to it, and if, after deducting this known part so claimed from the whole invention, sufficient novelty to be advantageous and useful remains, such claim will not invalidate the patent.

Plimpton v. Spiller, L.R. 6 Ch.D. 412 (1877).

A patent for improvements in roller skates by attaching rollers to the foot-stand, with a contrivance by which they could be made to turn in a circle by rocking the foot-stand. The claim for attaching rollers to a foot-stand was not new, although the mode of making them work was, and the patent was upheld. Frearson v. Loe, L.R. 9 Ch.D. 64 (1878).

A patent for improvements in screws and screwdrivers, the V nick in a screw being already known; but it was held, after striking out the old part, there was sufficient novelty left to be advantageous and useful, and so the patent was supported.

"Within the Realm."

The invention must be new "within the realm," which is defined by section 16, Patents Act, 1883, to extend over "the United Kingdom and Isle of Man," that being the extent of a grant for letters patent under the Act.

The Colonies do not, therefore, come "within the realm" for this purpose.

Rolls v. Isaacs, L.R. 19 Ch.D. 268 (1881).

A patent communicated from Natal, where it was known and used, to a person in England, who took out letters patent for it to use the invention in the United Kingdom and Ireland, Channel Islands and Isle of Man, was held good, as the prior user at Natal was not "within the realm."

Applicants.

The application.

CHAPTER III.

Proceedings under the New Patents Act, 1883,
to obtain a Patent.

By Section 3 this Act comes into operation on January 1, 1884.

THE APPLICATION.

S. 4 (1.) "Any person, whether a British subject or not, may make an application for a patent. (2.) "Two or more persons may make a joint application for a patent, which may be granted to them jointly" (see chap. i.).

And by

S. 34 (1.) "If a person possessed of an invention
dies without making an application for a
patent for the invention, application may
be made by, and a patent for the invention
granted to, his legal representative.
(2.)" Every such application must be made
within six months of the decease of such
person, and must contain a declaration by
the legal representative that he believes
such person to be the true and first
inventor of the invention."

S. 5 (1.) "An application for a patent must be
made in the form set forth in the First
Schedule to this Act, or in such other form
as may be from time to time prescribed
and must be left at, or sent by post to,
the Patent Office in the prescribed
manner."

1 All documents and notices under this Act may be sent by post, it being enacted by

1

S. 97 (1.) "Any application, notice, or other document authorized or required to be left, made, or given at the Patent Office, or to the Comptroller, or to any other person under this Act, may

« PreviousContinue »