that other alkalies and acids beside those before mentioned would answer the purposes of the invention, though not so well, and that the inventor claimed the method or process therein before described:-Held, that the specification was bad. "It must either be a claim of all acids and alkalies, or of all acids and alkalies that will answer the purpose. If it be a claim of all acids and alkalies, it is clearly bad, as there are some which will not answer the purpose. If it be a claim of those only which will answer the purpose, it is as clearly bad, in consequence of not stating those which will answer the purpose, and distinguishing them from those which will not, and so preventing the public from being under the necessity of making experiments to ascertain which of them will succeed and which will not." (2 Exch. 772; 19 L. J., Ex. 57.)

At Nisi Prius Pollock, C.B., said: "Some observations have been made at the bar on the subject of patents and specifications, and the different rules of construction that have been maintained at different periods. I take the rule to be, that you are not to intend anything in favour of a specification or patent, and certainly not to intend anything against it; you are to deal with it just as you find it; you are to put the true and right and fair construction upon every allegation and every fact connected with it, and you are to find what is the true and fair and just result. You are not to lean in favour of the public against the patent, which it is to be regretted was many years ago rather the fashion of the courts of justice, under the notion that it was a monopoly, that all monopolies were odious, and that, therefore, you were to intend everything against them; although, on the other hand, in modern times, it is said the leaning is the other way, I do not think there ought to be any leaning one way or the other." (2 Web. P. C. 187.)

(2) BEARD v. EGERTON. [1849]

A specification of a patent for " a new and improved method of obtaining the spontaneous reproduction of all the images received on the focus of the camera obscura," in describing the process, stated: It is to be divided into five operations. The first consists in polishing and cleaning the silver surface of the plate, in order to properly prepare or qualify it for receiving the sensitive layer or coating (iodine), upon which the action of the light traces the design; the second operation in the applying that sensitive layer or coating to the silver surface; the third, in submitting, in the camera obscura, the prepared surface or plate to the action of light, so that it may receive the images. The description of the first operation-preparing the silver surface of the plate-directed that nitric acid dissolved in water should be applied three different times, the plate being each time sprinkled with pounce, and lightly rubbed with cotton; adding, "When the plate is not intended for immediate use or operation, the acid may be used only twice upon its surface after being exposed to heat; the first part of the operation, that is, the preparation as far as the second application of the

acid, may be done at any time; this will allow of a number of plates being kept prepared up to the last slight operation; it is, however, considered indispensable, that, just before the moment of using the plates in the camera, or the reproducing the design, to put at least once more some acid on the plate, and to rub it lightly with pounce, as before stated; finally, the plate must be cleaned with cotton from all pounce dust which may be on the surface, or its edges." In a subsequent part of the specification, having described the second operation, viz., the application of the iodine, the inventor observed: "After this second operation is completed, the plate is to be passed to the third operation, or that of the camera obscura; whenever it is possible, the one operation should immediately follow the other: "-Held, that, taking the whole specification together, the direction as to the third application of acid was not to be understood to be a direction to apply the acid after the second operation, viz., the coating the plate with iodine,-which, it was proved, would render the whole process abortive, but to apply it as part of the first operation; and that the specification gave sufficient information to an operator of reasonable skill, and was therefore sufficient. (8 C. B. 165; 13 Jur. 1004; 19 L. J., C. P. 36.)

(a) SELLERS v. DICKINSON. [1850]

Pollock, C.J.: "The specification should be met with candour and indulgence." (5 Ex. 324.) Rolfe, B.: "The Court should read a specification as a person of ordinary understanding would do, not loosely conjecturing anything, but, at the same time, not scanning it as if it were a special plea." (Ib. 326.)

(b) THE ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH COMPANY v. BRETT. [1851]

Patent for improvements in giving signals and sounding alarums in distant places, by means of electric currents transmitted through metallic circuits." Subsequently to the patent, it was discovered that the return current could be conducted back to the battery through the earth as effectually as through a continuous metallic circuit. The defendant contended that, by using this method, they did not infringe the plaintiff's patent. Cresswell, J., delivering the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, said: "With respect to the specification, it is to be observed, that the claim of the patentees being for improvements not all immediately connected with, or dependent on, each other, but all applicable to giving signals, &c., by means of electric currents, the plan adopted in the specification, was, to give an account of the whole system or mode of transmission of electric currents for the purpose of giving signals, and the modes of giving those signals, specifying afterwards those parts claimed as improvements, and either expressly disclaiming, or leaving unclaimed, all that was not expressly claimed. It is obvious, that in such a specification, that part which describes the matter claimed, is to be much more strictly construed than that which, though necessarily mentioned, is not spoken of as a new matter, or as the subject of a grant, but only as something known,

and necessary to be referred to for the purpose of explaining the claim. Considered in this view, we think the specification, in speaking of metallic circuits, may properly be considered as comprehending all circuits which are metallic, as far as it is material to the improvements claimed that they should be so; and that the expression in question is not to be construed with more strictness and precision than is necessary to enable it to fulfil that purpose of explanation for which it was introduced." (10 Com. B. 880.) "It appears to us reasonable to hold that a claim for a patent for improvements in the mode of doing something by a known process, is sufficient to entitle the claimant to a patent for his improvements, when applied either to the process as known at the time of the claim, or to the same process altered and improved by discoveries not known at the time of the claim, so long as it remains identical with regard to improvements claimed, and their application." (lb. 881.)

-(c) NEWTON v. VAUCHER. [1851]

Specifications are to be read in connection with their titles. (6 Exch. 864.)

(d) HOLMES v. THE LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY. [1852]

The plaintiff obtained a patent for "an improved turningtable," all the component parts of which, except one, were comprised in a prior patent, the specification of which was not enrolled until after the date of the plaintiff's patent. The plaintiff, in his specification, claimed "the improved turning-table herein before described," without showing that any part of it was old. The jury found, that the introduction of certain suspending rods made the table a new instrument. Jervis, C.J., in delivering judgment, said: "The claim in substance is this- for an improved turningtable.' Now, that will not have the effect of making everything that follows a combination, merely because he claims the turningtable." (Macr. P. C. 27.) Maule, J., after pointing out that the patentee had not distinguished what was new from what was old, said: "If it be impliedly said in the specification, that the suspension rods are new, and an improvement on what existed before, the same implication arises as to every other part." (lb. 29.)

(e) TETLEY v. EASTON. N. P. [1852]

Pollock, C.B.: Specifications are to be construed in a candid and fair spirit, and if any mistake in one part can be corrected by other parts of the specification, such correction should be made. (Macr. P. C. 74.)

(ƒ) HASTINGS v. BROWN. [1853]

A specification in a patent, for a particular construction of windlasses, stated that the object was "to hold, without slipping, a chain cable of any size." Before the date of the patent, con

structions were known by which a windlass might be made to hold a single chain cable of any assigned size:-Held, that the specification did not unequivocally show, that the object was to construct a single windlass which might hold different chain cables, whatever their size, and that such a windlass was, therefore, not protected by the patent. (1 E. & B. 450; 22 L. J., Q. B. 161; 17 Jur. 647.)

(9) PALMER v. WAGSTAFF. [1854]

Pollock, C.B.: “A patent or specification should be construed in the sense which the patentee intended, and if any expressions are ambiguous, we should endeavour to give effect to the intention; and, moreover, I think that every patent should be expounded favourably to the patentee. But we ought not to violate the obvious meaning of the language, unless it is quite clear that the patentee intended something different from that which the expressions indicate." (9 Exch. 501.)

(h) UNWIN v. HEATH. H. L. [1855]

Crompton, J.: "I think that it would be a narrow and dangerous construction to limit the invention, claimed in express words, by the mode and process of working which the plaintiff sets forth, as a means of carrying his invention into effect." (25 L. J., C. P. 12.)

(i) BOVILL V. PIMM. [1856]

The construction of a specification is a question of law when the facts are not disputed. (11 Exch. 740.)

(j) HILLS v. LONDON GAS LIGHT COMPANY. [1857]

Though the construction of a patent or specification is ordinarily for the judge, yet where a specification mentioned "the precipitated or hydrated oxides of iron," and there was (on the issue of novelty) a prior patent proved, the specification of which mentioned carbonate of iron, and the scientific evidence showed that real carbonate of iron was difficult to be preserved, that it was not commonly sold in the shops (though it existed as a chemical substance), and what was sold for it would be, in fact, a hydrate, through absorption, but that carbonate would not be understood chemically as meaning hydrate; the judge, having ruled that the specification was to be construed commercially not scientifically, that carbonate commercially meant the "hydrate," and that, on the issue of novelty, the plaintiff must be nonsuited, the Court, after great doubt, set aside the nonsuit, and granted a new trial. (27 L. J., Exch. 60.) See same case, infra, 469 (1).

(k) THOMAS v. FOXWELL. Ex. Ch. [1859]

The patentee of a sewing machine in his specification, claimed "the application of a shuttle in combination with a needle, as shown in sheet 1, for forming and sewing loops of thread or other

substance, for the purpose of producing stitches either to unite or ornament fabrics, whatever may be the means employed for working such shuttle and needle when employed together." By a disclaimer he stated, "I do not claim the use in a machine of several needles and shuttles, nor do I claim any of the mechanical parts separately of which the machinery shown in the drawing is composed: "-Held (affirming the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench (5 Jur., N. S. 37)), that the claim was not confined to the single application of a shuttle in combination with a needle, as shown in sheet 1, but extended generally to the application of a shuttle with a needle, for attaining the object therein stated. (6 Jur., N. S. 271.)

(1) HILLS V. THE LONDON GAS LIGHT COMPANY. [1860]

In a patent for an improved mode of manufacturing gas, the plaintiff claimed a mode of purifying gas by means of "hydrated or precipitated oxide of iron: "-Held, that this included only precipitated hydrates. (5 H. & N. 312; 29 L. J., Ex. 409.) Bramwell, B.: "It appears to us, upon looking at the specification, that the plaintiff uses those equivalent expressions, because he says, hydrated or precipitated,' and that oxide of iron may be conveniently prepared for these purposes, and so on; and therefore it is obvious that when he uses that word hydrated, he uses it as synonymous with precipitated; and consequently, when he speaks of using hydrated or precipitated oxides, he means such hydrated oxides as are precipitated.' (5 H. & N. 368; 29 L. J., Ex. 424.)

(m) OXLEY v. HOLDEN. [1860]

Patent for "certain improvements in the doors and sashes of carriages." One part of the invention consisted of a metal plate, with a slot and a stud or pin working in a groove on each side of the sash or frame; and the patentee claimed "the metal fittings and the mode of applying the same, described herein as the second part of my invention." The description of the metal fittings was inseparably interwoven, throughout the specification, with the mode of applying them :-Held, that this was a claim, not for the metal fittings themselves, but for the mode of applying them, and consequently, that the patent was sustained by proof that the application was new, though the stud and plates themselves were old. (8 C. B., N. S. 666; 30 L. J., C. P. 68; 8 W. R. 626; 2 L. T. Rep., N. S. 464.)

(n) SEED v. HIGGINS. H. L. [1860]

Lord Campbell, L.C.: "Where novelty or infringement depend merely on the construction of the specification, it is a pure question of law for the judge; but where the consideration arises how far one machine, or a material part of one machine, imitates or resembles another in that which is the alleged invention, it generally becomes a mixed question of law and fact which must be left to the jury." (8 H. L. Cas. 561.)