The Castner-Kellner Alkali Company, Ld. v. The Commercial Kellner meant and conveyed was, that the mercury was to be stationary with reference to its containing vessel. Then in the arrangement contemplated by Claim 3, does he depart from the idea of such a stationary cathode ? It is said he does, because it is suggested that the rotary motion of the 5 containing vessel tends to disturb the body of mercury with reference to that vessel by the centrifugal force which the rotation imparts to the mercury. But Lord Kelvin told me-and I think he was right when he said it-that this centrifugal force would be extremely slight, and could not be said to affect the otherwise stationary character of the mercury cathode. It was further sug10 gested that the lips of the bells would dip in the mercury; would agitate the surface of the revolving mercury, and so destroy its stationary character. But this, again, I think also a small matter, not really affecting the question. These lips slide over the surface of the mercury, or the surface of the mercury slides under them, without causing any substantial disturbance. This sliding is 15 referred to at page 5 of Dr. Kellner's Specification, line 24,* and in the Defendants' patent, page 3, line 17.† Substantially, in my opinion, the stationary character of the mercury cathode is secured in the Plaintiffs' apparatus, whether it is worked as described in Figures 1 to 6 or in Figures 7 or 8. 66 A further disconformity, however, was relied upon-not, I think, very 20 strenuously; but as it was referred to and discussed, I must deal with it. It was said that Claim 4 introduced something not contemplated by the Provisional Specification. Claim 4 reads as follows :-" In apparatus of the kind specified in the preceding claims, the arrangement of a third electrode G in "the combining chamber, or in each such chamber, the said electrode G, or 25" each of them when there are more than one, forming with the mercury "cathode a short circuited secondary element, for the purpose of rapidly "removing the alkaline metal from the amalgam substantially as hereinbefore "described with reference to and illustrated by Fig. 9." I think this Claim to use with his patented apparatus a third electrode-which the Defendants say is 30 necessary if you are to make the apparatus work usefully-merely describes how best the patented apparatus may be used. It is a means by which a smaller body of water may be employed than would otherwise be required. It does not enlarge in any way the ambit of the patent, and might, without injury to the Plaintiffs' rights, be struck out altogether. 35 There remains, then, the question of infringement. Now, in my view, the question of disconformity and the question of infringement involve very much the same considerations. Mr. Terrell, in the course of the case, during the cross-examination of Mr. Swinburne, admitted that if no distinction could be drawn between the rotary movement and the to-and-fro movement, then there 40 was no practical distinction between the Defendants' and the Plaintiffs' apparatus. Mr. Rhodin, the Patentee of the invention now owned by the Defendants, describes his invention at page 2 of his Specification, and it is only necessary to read it and to bear in mind what Kellner's invention is, in order to detect the similarity. He says, line 8, "I employ a cylindrical vessel with a flat base and open top;" this is the vessel which is to contain the mercury cathode. On the bottom of that vessel he places a number of what he calls radial ribs or projections, the object of which is (see page 3, line 15‡) to prevent the mercury from revolving; in other words, to secure a stationary mercury cathode. Having thus secured his stationary mercury cathode, he introduces 50 into this cylindrical vessel another cylindrical vessel concentric with the first. At the bottom of the second vessel there is a series of tubes arranged in a circle, with their lips just dipping into the mercury contained in the first * Ante page 648, line 5, † Ante page 650, line 53, Ante page 650, line 50. 45" 3 K The Castner-Kellner Alkali Company, Ld. v. The Commercial vessel. These tubes correspond exactly with the circle of bells described in Figures 7 and 8 of the Plaintiffs' patent, and they serve precisely the same purpose; they contain the solution of salt which has to be operated upon, and so they form a series of decomposing chambers. This second vessel containing these tubes or bells, with their lips just dipping into the stationary mercury 5 cathode, is then "slowly" rotated (see lines 5 and 13 of page 3), so that the lips of the tubes or bells disturb the mercury as little as possible. Thus the electrolysis is performed. This seems to me to be nothing more nor less than the Plaintiffs' apparatus, as described in his Figures 7 and 8. The Defendants say that their apparatus does not introduce a stationary mercury cathode at all, 10 and they say that the combined action of the ribs lying under the bed of mercury at the bottom of the outer vessel, and of the lips of the bells dipping into the top of the mercury, and of the slow rotating movement of the inner vessel, is to produce a cathode which is not stationary. I do not agree with this contention; the ribs are put into the outer vessel for the very purpose of 15 preventing the circulation of the mercury inside the containing vessel; and as to the slight agitation or movement produced by the lips of the tubes and the rotary motion, they do not alter the real stationary character of the cathode. I think the Plaintiffs are entitled to succeed, and I grant the injunction asked for. 20 No inquiry as to damages was granted, as the Defendants had not been working. A certificate that they had proved their Particulars of Breaches was given to the Plaintiffs, and also a certificate that the validity of the patent came in question. Execution (except as regards costs) was stayed, pending an appeal. 25 Peters v. Owen. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.-CHANCERY DIVISION. Before MR. JUSTICE BIGHAM.-July 7th, 1898. PETERS v. OWEN. Patent.-Action for infringement.-Construction of Specification.—Claim 5 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 10 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. It 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. 15 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 20 Objections were not gone into, and a certificate that they were reasonable or proper was refused. This was an action for infringement of two Letters Patent-No. 8017 of 1891 granted to Oliver Imray (a communication from abroad by Dr Friedrich Zernikow) for "Improved apparatus employed in the manufacture of artificial 25 sandstone," and No. 8142 of 1893 granted to Ernst Abund Richard Avenarius for "Improvements in and connected with moulding boxes for the manufacture "of artificial sandstone." 30 35 66 The infringement complained of was the manufacture of artificial stone by the use of apparatus similar to that shown in these two Specifications. The Defendant denied the validity of the Letters Patent, and also denied that he had infringed. Particulars of Objection were delivered, alleging invalidity on various grounds, but the only point considered at the trial was as to the construction of the Specification of Letters Patent No. 8017 of 1891, and as to infringement. The Specification, as amended, was as follows:-"In every application of "burnt pulverulent lime in the manufacture of artificial stone, it is necessary "to provide means for resisting the expansion thereof on slaking, if it be "desired to prevent any alteration in the form of the stone to be produced. "In particular this is necessary in the process in which pulverised burnt lime Peters v. Owen. 66 "is mixed dry with sand, slag powder, or other siliceous substances, then "rammed into moulds and subjected to the action of high pressure steam, so "as to effectually slake the lime; during this operation the expanding action "of the slaking lime must be effectually resisted, so that the moulds may not "be burst or bulged outwards, the lime being thus forced to penetrate 5 thoroughly into all the interstices between the granules of sand, so as, after "hardening, to produce a perfectly hard dense cohering mass. According to "the present invention, the requisite resistance to the expansion of the lime is "afforded by enclosing the charged moulds in a strong casing, the interior of "which is subjected to the pressure of high pressure steam which, being 10 "-exerted-against-the-outer-surfaces of the moulds,-will-effectually-resist-any "-bulging-or-bursting-action-of-the-lime: When the moulded objects to be 66 66 66 66 66 produced are not of such large dimensions that a single mould fills the said casing more or less entirely, such as large columns, it is, for the sake of "economical production, desirable to arrange the moulds for the objects that 15 are most used, such as building blocks, slabs, steps, cornices &c., so that they can be packed closely together within the casing, in order that the sides that are in contact may afford each other mutual support against the expanding "action, and may consequently be made less strong than would otherwise be "necessary. As is well known, the circular form is the only one that resists 20 "any deformation by an expanding pressure exerted uniformly in every "direction such as that exercised by the slaking lime. On this principle is constructed the apparatus for carrying out the said operation as shown on "the accompanying drawings, in which Fig. 1 shews the elevation of a "vertically arranged cylindrical steam chamber A which can be raised in a 25 "vertical position from off the base D by a winch or crane by means of the ring B at top. To the lower end 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 "a a, with an intervening packing if necessary, for forming a steam tight joint. 66 66 66 30 "The steam chamber is provided with a branch pipe (not shewn 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 "led 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 35 "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 66 66 "The size and arrangement of the moulds may be variously modified; by way of example, there are here shewn four main moulds of which two are, "say, 50 cm. wide, and 20 cm. high and the other two 90 cm. wide and 40 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 "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. 45 2, which may be of iron or steel. 66 66 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 50 compartments will be formed of 150 cm. length, 20 cm. height and about "50 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 The mould or box, thus filled and closed, is now placed on end in the 66 66 3 on. Peters v. Owen. 66 "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 5" and screw bolts c c. 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 plate J is placed upon the upper ends of the moulds and is secured to the 10" 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 15" 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 store. 66 The steam-thus-operates both-as-the--agent-for-slaking-the-lime-and-for "exerting considerable--pressure-against-the-outer-surfaces-of-the-moulds,-in 20 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 "it understood that I am aware that it is not novel to employ a steam 25" 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 "water or steam; or to submit a mixture of sand and lime in moulds to 30" 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 66 |