described and ascertained in and by the following statement (c): "Having now particularly described and ascertained the nature of my said invention, and in what manner the same is to be performed, I declare that what I claim is (d) 66 I. 2.. (c.) Here insert full description of invention. 3. &c. NOTE. This document must form the commencement of the complete specification; the continuation to be upon wide-ruled foolscap paper (but on one side only) with a margin of 2 inches on left hand of paper. The complete specification and the "Duplicate" thereof, must be signed by the applicant or his agent on the last sheet, the date being first inserted as follows: "Dated this day of 18 (d.) Here state distinctly the features of the novelty claimed. S. 8. (1.) "If the applicant does not leave a com- Time for leaving complete specifi plete specification with his application, he cation. (2.) "Unless a complete specification is left the complete and fications by the S. 9. (1.) "Where a complete specification is left Comparison of after a provisional specification, the Comp- provisional specitroller shall refer both specifications to an Examiner. Examiner, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the complete specification has been prepared in the prescribed manner,2 1 By section 98: When the last day fixed by this Act for leaving any document at the Patent Office falls on Christmas Day, Good Friday, or on a Saturday or Sunday, or any Bank Holiday, or any day observed as a public fast or thanksgiving, such document may be left on the day next following such excluded day or days, if two or more occur consecutively. 2 I.e., according to section 5, sub-section (4), and in the form given in the Schedule of the Rules; and for one invention only, although it may contain more than one claim by section 33. Comptroller, may require amendments. Appeal to law officer. Time within which complete specification must be accepted. and whether the invention particularly described in the complete specification is substantially the same as that which is described in the provisional specification. (2.) "If the Examiner reports that the conditions herein before contained have not been complied with, the Comptroller may refuse to accept the complete specification unless and until the same shall have been amended to his satisfaction; but any such refusal shall be subject to appeal to the Law Officer. 66 (3.) "The Law Officer shall, if required, hear (5.) "Reports of Examiners shall not in any 1 As to the powers of the Law Officers see note, p. 35. S. 10. "On acceptance of the complete specification, the Comptroller shall advertise the acceptance; and the application and specification, or specifications, with drawings, if any, shall be open to public inspection.' And by Rule 25, on the acceptance of an application with a provisional or complete specification, the Comptroller shall give notice thereof to the applicant, and shall advertise such acceptance in the official journal of the Patent Office. Rule 26. Upon the publication of such advertisement of acceptance in the case of an application with a complete specification, the application and specification or specifications with the drawings (if any) may be inspected at the Patent Office upon payment of the prescribed fee. A search or inspection fee is IS. a complete "A complete specification must particularly describe and The meaning of ascertain the nature of the invention, and in what manner it specification. is to be performed" (s. 5, sub-sec. (4)), means that the description of the invention must not be in general, or generic terms, or described in the alternative; but must be precise and clear, and state the best way known to the inventor himself. Moreover, the manner of carrying out the invention must be so described that a workman or mechanic of ordinary skill and ability can carry the invention into effect by following the directions of the specification without having recourse to experiment or any inventive faculty himself. And the provisional specification will not be allowed to be given in evidence to explain any part of the complete specification, which must be complete in itself; but drawings, if any, which may accompany the complete specification, being part of it, may be referred to in explanation thereof. The complete specification must also describe substantially the same invention which the provisional specification has set out, or it will be bad (s. 9, sub-sec. (1) ). The construction of a specification is to be benevolent—that is, a bias between two different constructions in favour of the real improvement or genuine invention, to adopt that construction which supports the invention. The following are a few examples of cases where the description in the specification came in question :— R. v. Arkwright, I Web. P.R. 64 (1785). A specification which set out ten different kinds of instruments, but containing no direction how they Not sufficient. Sufficient. Description in the alternative insufficient. Specification made clear by drawings. were to be combined or used, was held bad, and the patent void; as a man must disclose his secret and specify his invention, so that others may be taught to do the thing for which the patent is granted. Morgan v. Seaward, 2 M. & W. 544 (1837). The specification described an improvement in machinery for propelling vessels, to consist of an improvement in paddle wheels, whereby the float boards or paddles were made to enter and come out of the water at the position best adapted, as far as experiments have determined the angle, for giving full effect to the power applied. The claim was for the mode herein before described of giving the required angle to the paddles. Held the description was sufficient to enable an ordinary and competent workman to obtain the required angle. Neilson v. Harford, 3 M. & W. 806 (1842). The specification described the invention thus:"A blast or current of air must be produced by bellows, &c., and is to be passed into an air receptacle, thence by a pipe into the furnace. The form of the vessel is immaterial in effect." The jury found the form was material, but no one would be misled. Held good, although if such a description had been found misleading it would have been bad. Beard v. Egerton, 19 L.J.C.P. 36 (1849). A description in a specification of the daguerreotype process, divided into five parts. Held sufficient when all read together. Simpson v. Halliday, L.R. 1 H.L. 315 (1866). A patent for "improvement in preparation of red and purple dyes" thus described :—I mix aniline with dry arsenic acid, and allow the mixture to stand sometime; or I accelerate the operation by heating it to or near boiling-point until it assumes a rich purple colour. It was proved necessary to apply heat, but a competent workman would probably apply it. Held a bad description, being in the alternative, and one mode being bad. Poupard v. Fardell, 18 W.R. 127 (1869). A patent for an improved skid for wheels. It was described having a tail-piece projecting from the back part and top of the skid chamber. "I find the best results to be obtained when the projecting tail-piece is curved upwards, but I do not limit myself to so shaping, it." This was accompanied by a diagram showing the skid with a long curved tail-piece upwards. Held there was nothing to mislead a workman making Dudgeon v. Thompson, Sc. Ca. 3rd ser. vol. II, p. 871 (1873). Badishe Anilien und Soda Fabrik v. Levenstein, W.N. 1883, p. 134. . A patent for a chemical process. It was held where the plaintiff has shown a practical mode of working his process he is not bound to show every mode in which the article could be made. Hinks v. Safety Lighting Co., L.R. 4 Ch.D. 607 (1876). The specification states: "A circular hole is made in the cone or deflector, through which this circular flame passes.' In the drawing no hole was shown. Held the invention badly specified. Wegmann v. Corcoran, L.R. 13 Ch.D. 65 (1879). 66 Insufficient. generic terms, bad. The specification of a machine for crushing meal Description in described the squeezing rollers to have a surface con- and therefore sisting of a material containing so much silica as not to colour the meal. "I prefer to make them of iron coated with china, finely turned with diamond tools." The claim was for the use of “ material of the hardness required." It was proved only very hard china would do, which was seldom made now, and experiments would be necessary to find out the kind of china. Held the patent was bad, on account of the material being described by a generic term, which comprised a variety of species, the large majority of which would be unsuitable for the purpose required. Otto v. Linford, 46 L.T.N.S. 35 (C.A.) (1882). A patent for improvements in gas motor engines by mixing atmospheric air with inflammable gas, so that on ignition it would produce a gradual development of heat. The specification did not mention the proportion of air to be let in. Held immaterial, as there was sufficient in the specification to tell the maker and user of the engine, without requiring him to use any inventive faculty, how to make the |