REVOCATION OF PATENT-continued. evidence the grounds of the petition failed, and that the petition must be dismissed, with costs. HATTERSLEY AND JACKSON'S PATENT, p. 497. 6. Petition for, granted on the ground that the process described did not produce the alleged result.-Patent not producing alleged result.-Patent revoked.-Practice. In 1896, Letters Patent were granted to C. for "Preparation of ortho-sulphamine benzoic acid," being a method of preparing saccharine. In 1897, The Saccharine Corporation, Ld., presented a petition for revocation of this patent on the ground of want of utility, want of subject-matter, and that the Specification did not describe a process by which saccharine could be produced. On the hearing of the petition it was unopposed, and the patent was revoked. Practice where Respondent is abroad. CERCKEL'S PATENT, p. 500. 7. See AMENDMENT OF SPECIFICATION. OWEN'S PATENT, p. 755. 66 8. Petition granted, it being held that prior user had been established. -Petition for revocation.-Anticipation.-Prior user.-Patent revoked. In 1888, a patent was granted to S. for "a disconnecting, folding, or fixed arm anchor." In 1898, N. presented a petition for revocation of the patent on the ground (inter alia) of prior user of the invention, alleging that he had himself prior to the date of the patent altered an anchor so that it possessed the features of the patented anchor.-Held, that the alleged prior user of the invention had been established, and the patent was revoked, with costs against the Respondents, except that a certificate was granted as to the costs of some only of the Particulars of Objections. SINNETTE'S PATENT, p. 761. ROYALTY. See also LICENSE. 66 In Action for Royalties. Construction of Agreement.-Conflicting SPECIFICATION (AMENDMENT OF). See AMENDMENT OF SPECIFICATION. SPECIFICATION (CONSTRUCTION OF). 1. The words "substantially as described and set forth" in the Specification of a patent for improvements in the base frame of cycle saddles held to limit the claim to the use of a particular beam in a particular manner. BROOKS v. LAMPLUGH, p. 33. 2. "We think that in dealing with patents for special arrangements of very "familar mechanical means, such as pins, washers, clips or gripping "cheeks, nuts, &c., it is necessary to scrutinise the invention claimed "with some nicety. By straining the doctrine of mechanical equi"valents, a patent for a particular combination of well known "appliances for fastening the framing rods of a saddle to a vertical pillar, might be made to cover almost any other combination ; per SMITH, L.J. BROOKS . LAMPLUGH, p. 50. 66 99 3. "Substantially as described' in a claim is not to be limited to the very "words of the descriptive letterpress exclusive of the description of "the drawings," per RIGBY, L.J. PNEUMATIC TYRE Co., LD. v. THE TUBELESS PNEUMATIC TYRE AND CAPON, HEATON, LD. AND OTHERS, p. 243. 4. In a patent for a combination, Patentee held to have claimed one of the elements which was anticipated.-Action for infringement.-Construction.-Invention.-Anticipation. Patent held invalid.-Action and appeal both dismissed. In 1892, a patent was granted to D. for "Improvements in hollow rivets and studs, and "in the process of riveting, which improvements are applicable to "braces and other like articles." The first claim of D.'s patent was as follows:-" Making hollow rivets and studs of a "tubular shank closed at one end and flanged at the open end, the "said hollow shank at and near the closed end being of less diameter "than the part at or near the open end, the parts of the shank of "different diameters passing into one another preferably by a "conical shoulder, and the use with hollow rivets and studs of "this construction of ring-like plates or eyes, either detached or "formed in the articles with which the rivets or studs are to be "used substantially as herein before described and illustrated in "Figures 1 to 24, both inclusive of the accompanying drawings." In 1896, D. commenced an action for infringement against K., who denied infringement, subject-matter, and novelty, alleging prior user by P., himself, and others, and prior publication by prior patents of himself and others. It appeared that hollow rivets having the closed top but without the shoulder were old, and that hollow eyelets with the shoulder with an open top were old.-Held, at the trial, that the first claim was a combination claim for the use, with the rivets described, of the ring-like plates, and that there was, having regard to what had been done before, no novelty or invention, for the Defendant had, prior to the patent, made rivets only differing from D.'s in not having closed ends and giving substantially the same result, and the washer was old. The action was therefore dismissed. D. appealed.-Held, on appeal, that D., by his Specification, claimed the rivet or stud separately as well as in combination with the discs or plates, and that the stud was anticipated, the exact thing having been made and used by P. as a button prior to the patent, and SPECIFICATION (CONSTRUCTION OF)-continued. (semble per LINDLEY, M.R.) that the separate claim for the stud was also invalid by reason of the prior manufacture by K. of studs similar to D.'s, except that they had open ends instead of closed ones. DOWLER 1. KEELING, p. 216. " 5. Construction of Claim. Pith and marrow of invention. An improved tyre for bicycles held to be infringed.—Action for infringement.-Validity.-Anticipation.-Infringement.--Appeal to the House of Lords dismissed. A company, the owners of a patent for Improvements in tyres or rims for cycles and other vehicles," brought an action for infringement. The Complete Specification claimed, first, the combination of a grooved rim or metal tyre and an arched tyre of india-rubber or other flexible material held in the groove by the pressure of an inflated tube within the arch which forces its edges against the sides of the groove substantially as described. In the body of the Specification the tube was described as of cloth and india rubber. The Defendants denied infringement, and alleged the invalidity of the Plaintiff's patent on grounds of anticipation and prior grant. The alleged infringement had the inner tube of pure india-rubber, and differed also from the tyre shown in the Specification in the bending and adjustment of the edges of the metal rim, these presenting approximately the formation of a hook. It was held, at the trial, that the patent was valid and had been infringed, and an injunction and an inquiry as to damages were granted, and this decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The Defendants appealed to the House of Lords.-Held, that the first claim was for the method shown in the Specification, and any method substantially the same of connecting the outer cover with the rim so that the ends of the cover are gripped; that an inner tube of cloth and india-rubber was not of the essence of the invention; and that the patent was valid and had been infringed. Appeal dismissed, with costs. GORMULLY AND JEFFERY MANUFACTURING Co. v. NORTH BRITISH RUBBER Co., LD., AND ANOTHER, p. 245. 66 6. Ambiguous word." There is ample authority that if an ambiguous "word is used which will cover something essential, but will not "necessarily include it, this will make the patent bad; but the ambiguity must be an ambiguity which would leave the manu"facturer in doubt," per VAUGHAN - WILLIAMS, L.J. BADISCHE ANILIN AND SODA FABRIK v. LA SOCIÉTÉ CHIMIQUE DES USINES DU RHÔNE AND WILSON, p. 369. 7. The Specification of a patent for an explosive compound held limited to an explosive compound the main ingredients of which were guncotton and a limited amount of nitroglycerine and that on such construction there was no infringement.-Construction of Specification.-Validity.-Infringement.-Action dismissed.-Appeal dismissed. In 1889, a patent was granted to M. for " Improvements in the manufacture of explosive compounds." The Complete Specification, after describing the effects of the improvements, stated that "in the manufacture of "explosive compounds according to my present invention, I mix "dissolved guncotton or pyroxyline with nitroglycerine, nitrogelatine, "or similar material, and with oil, preferably castor-oil. I have "discovered that the addition of castor-oil or other suitable oil to compounds of dissolved guncotton and nitroglycerine, nitrogelatine, 66 66 SPECIFICATION (CONSTRUCTION OF)-continued. 16747-2 66 66 66 66 66 "or the like, increases the toughness of the product, and modifies the "explosive properties thereof, whilst greatly diminishing its liability "to deterioration by exposure to the atmosphere." The reasons for the preference for castor-oil were then stated to be-(1) solubility by means of the solvents employed for dissolving guncotton and nitroglycerine or nitrogelatine; (2) the fact of its combining with either of these substances; (3) the fact of its containing oxygen; moreover, that it made the compound tough, easy to be cut and pressed, and prevented its deterioration. The Specification then continued :—“ I "produce an explosive compound which is advantageous for various purposes by mixing the guncotton, the nitroglycerine, the nitrogelatine, or similar substance, and the castor-oil in, or about in, the following proportions, viz., from 2 or 5 per cent. of the castor oil, "from 10 to 16 per cent. of the nitroglycerine or the like, and the "remainder of guncotton." Methods of manufacture were then stated, and the claims were as follows:-" First. An explosive compound consisting essentially of guncotton or pyroxyline mixed. "with nitroglycerine, nitrogelatine, or similar material, and with castor-oil or other suitable oil, for the purpose above specified. "Second. The manufacture of an explosive compound by first "dissolving guncotton by means of acetone or other solvent, and then "incorporating with the dissolved guncotton, nitroglycerine, nitro "gelatine, or similar material, and castor-oil or other suitable oil, "substantially as herein before described. Third. The manufacture "of an explosive compound by dissolving, first, castor-oil or other "suitable oil and then guncotton by means of acetone or other "solvent, and incorporating therewith nitroglycerine, nitrogelatine, "or similar material, substantially as herein before described. "Fourth. The manufacture of an explosive compound by first mixing "nitroglycerine, nitrogelatine, or similar material, and castor-oil or "other suitable oil, with a small quantity of acetone or similar "solvent, treating dried guncotton with this mixture in a rotary "cylinder or chamber, and then subjecting the product, in a cylinder 66 or chamber from which air is exhausted, to the action of vaporized "acetone or other solvent, and then to pressure, substantially as "herein before described." A., who is Director-General of H.M. Ordnance Factories, manufactured" Cordite," a powder composed of 58 per cent. of nitroglycerine, 37 per cent. of guncotton, and 5 per cent. of vaseline. M. and the M. Company, who claimed under him, commenced an action for infringement of his patent against A. The Defendant denied infringement, and raised the following objections to the validity of the patent :-(1) That M. was not the true and first. inventor; (2) want of subject-matter; (3) want of utility; (4) that the Specification did not sufficiently describe the nature of the invention, inasmuch as if the proportions mentioned were departed from the directions for manufacture were insufficient; (5) that the Specification did not sufficiently distinguish what was claimed to be new from what was not so claimed; (6) that the invention had been anticipated by several prior publications. At the trial it was held that the patent was valid but that the Defendant had not infringed. On appeal it was held that M.'s patent must be limited to a powder in which the proportions were those or about those mentioned in the Specification that otherwise it would be invalid as claiming proportions many of which would be useless and as requiring experiment to ascertain the limits of the practical proportions and that the patent being thus limited in these respects was good but the Defendants did Ꭰ SPECIFICATION (CONSTRUCTION OF)-continued. not infringe it. It was also held by the majority of the Court (affirming WRIGHT, J.) that the expression "castor-oil or other "suitable oil" did not having regard to the rest of the Specification include the mineral oils and did not include vaseline and that therefore on this ground the Defendant did not infringe. The appeal was dismissed with costs. The Plaintiffs appealed to the House of Lords.-Held, that on the true construction of the Specification the claim was limited to an explosive compound the main ingredient of which is guncotton and which possesses or contains in proportion only a limited amount of nitroglycerine, and as on that construction there was admittedly no infringement the appeal was dismissed. MAXIMNORDENFELT GUNS AND AMMUNITION CO., LD. v. ANDERSON, p. 421. 8. Held that on the true construction of the Specification the claim was for an improved apparatus and not for a process.-Action for infringement.-Construction of Specification.-Claim whether for apparatus or process.-Infringement not found.-Certificate as to Particulars of Objections refused to a successful Defendant. In 1891, a patent was granted to I. for "Improved apparatus employed "in the manufacture of artificial sandstone," and in 1893 a patent was granted to A. for a similar object. An action was brought for infringement of these two patents, but the first only was relied upon at the trial. The Defendant denied infringement and denied the validity of the patents, and delivered Particulars of Objections. was contended for the Plaintiff that on the true construction of the Specification the claim was not for a special form of apparatus but for a process, and that the Defendant was employing this process. -Held, that the Plaintiff's claim was not for a process but for an improved apparatus, and that the whole object was to secure the rigidity of the moulds used by means of rings, bolts, and stays, and in the Defendant's apparatus there were not rings, bolts, or stays used. Therefore the Defendant had not infringed, and judgment was given for him, with costs. The Particulars of Objections were not gone into, and a certificate that they were reasonable or proper was refused. PETERS v. OWEN, p. 663. SPECIFICATION, SUFFICIENCY OF. 1. In a patent for a combination two judges of the Irish Court of Appeal held that it was clear that the Patentee claimed for the combination only, and that the patent was valid, the other two judges held the contrary, but as the Court was equally divided the judgment of the Court below, upholding the patent, stood. WEBB v. KYNOCH & Co., LD., p. 541. In 2. Specification of patent for self-flushing water-closets held insufficient.-Action for infringement.-Construction.-Subjectmatter.-Novelty.-Patent held invalid.-Appeal dismissed. 1885, Letters Patent were granted to A. for "The use of earthenware "pipes in place of brickwork or other material in the formation of "self-flushing water closets." The claim (as amended) was for "The use of pipes of the above form, constructed of earthenware to |