Title Generally.

PATENTS ACT, 1883, sect. 5 sub-sect. (5). A specification, whether provisional or complete, must commence with the title, and in the case of a complete specification must end with a distinct statement of the invention claimed.

Sect. 6. The comptroller shall refer every application to an examiner, who shall ascertain and report to the comptroller whether the nature of the invention has been fairly described, and the application, specification, and drawings (if any) have been prepared in the prescribed manner, and the title sufficiently indicates the subject-matter of the invention.

Sect. 7 amended by Patents Act, 1888, sect. 2. For sect. 7 of the principal Act the following section shall be substituted, namely :—

"7. (1.) If the examiner reports that the nature of the invention is not fairly described, or that the application, specification, or drawings has not, or have not, been prepared in the prescribed manner, or that the title does not sufficiently indicate the subject-matter of the invention, the comptroller may refuse to accept the application, or require that the application, specification, or drawings be amended before he proceeds with the application; and in the latter case the application shall, if the comptroller so directs, bear date as from the time when the requirement is complied with.

"(2.) Where the comptroller refuses to accept an application or requires an amendment, the applicant may appeal from his decision to the law officer.

"(3.) The law officer shall, if required, hear the applicant and the comptroller, and may make an order determining whether, and subject to what conditions (if any), the application shall be accepted.

"(4.) The comptroller shall, when an application has been accepted, give notice thereof to the applicant.

"(5.) If, after an application for a patent has been made, but before the patent thereon has been sealed, another application for a patent is made, accompanied by a specification bearing the same or a similar title, the comptroller, if he thinks fit, on the request of the second applicant, or of his legal representative, may, within two months of the grant of a patent on the first application, either decline to proceed with the second application or allow the surrender of the patent, if any, granted thereon."

(k) HORNBLOWER v. BOULTON. [1799]

Grose, J., said: "I consider the patent (title) and specification so connected together as to make a part of each other, and that to learn what the patent is I may read the specification, and consider it as incorporated with the patent." (Dav. P. C. 230.)

(1) THE HOUSEHILL COMPANY v. NEILSON. N. P. [1843]

The title of a patent discloses the object of the invention. (1 Web. P. C. 678.)

(m) 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, and this was the method used by the defendants. Cresswell, J., delivering the judgment of the Court, said: "With regard to the use of the words' metallic circuits' in the title of the patent, it was urged that the patentees, by using those words, would mislead a person who was in possession of improvements identical with the plaintiff's, but which he intended to use in giving signals by non-metallic circuits, and who might have opposed the grant of a patent of a more comprehensive title, but would acquiesce in one confined to metallic circuits. But it appears to us, that, whatever might be the case, supposing currents transmitted in the manner used by the defendants to have been known at the time of granting the patent, or of giving notice of the application for it, the title did, in the actual circumstances of the case, that is to say, the earthcircuit not being publicly known, give sufficient notice to any person secretly acquainted with that discovery, or thinking it probable that some such discovery might be made, and having also invented improvements like those of the patentees, to put him on his guard, and on an inquiry how far the proposed patent might interfere with him." (10 Com. B. Rep. 881; 20 L. J., C. P. 130; 15 Jur. 582.)

(n) NEWTON v. VAUCHER. [1851]

The title of a patent, which should be read in conjunction with the specification, may limit a patentee's claim, which would otherwise have voided the patent as being too large. (6 Ex. 866; 21 L. J., Ex. 308.)

(n*) HILLS v. THE LONDON GAS LIGHT COMPANY. [1860]

The title of a patent was for "an improved mode of manufacturing gas." The invention consisted in the application of the hydrated oxides of iron in purifying gas from sulphuretted hydrogen, and in renovating the oxides so used by exposure to the air. The Court held this to be an improved mode of manufacturing gas. (5 H. & N. 370; 29 L. J., Ex. 424.)

(0) BROWN'S PATENT. [1887]

The title being for "improvements in casks and tubs," the specification described the invention as applicable to tubs and analogous vessels in which the staves were formed with a groove. Held, by the law officers that the title was sufficient. (2 Griff. 1.)

Largeness of Title.

(0*) REX v. ELSE. [1785]

The patent was for a newly invented manufacture of lace, called French, or wire-ground lace. The specification went generally to the invention of mixing silk and cotton thread upon the frame. It was proved that this was not new. It was contended, in answer, that the former use was inadequate to the purpose of making lace on account of its coarseness, and that the patentee was the first to

succeed in uniting strength and fineness. Buller, J., held the patent void, as the claim (expressed in the title) went to the exclusive liberty of making lace composed of silk and cotton thread mixed, and not to any particular mode of making it. (1 Web. P. C. 76; Dav. P. C. 144; Bull, N. P. 76.)

(P) COCHRANE v. SMETHURST. [1816]

A patent was granted for "a method or methods of more completely lighting cities, towns, and villages." The invention described consisted of improvements in street lamps :- Held, that the patent was void, on the ground of the title being too large. The patent ought to have been taken for an improvement in street lamps. (Dav. P. C. 354; 1 Stark, N. P. 205.)

(1) CAMPION v. BENYON. [1821]

Where a patent was obtained, for "a new and improved method of making and manufacturing double canvas and sail cloth with hemp and flax, without any starch whatever," and the specification described the invention to consist in an improved texture, or mode of twisting the threads, to be applied to the making of un-starched cloth; on its being proved that the exclusion of starch had been before adopted-Held, that such patent was void, as being taken out for more than the patentee had really discovered. Dallas, C.J. : "If there be any ambiguity, either in the patent itself, or in the specification, in any material point, it is of itself a ground for rendering the patent absolutely void." (6 B. Mo. 71; 3 B. & B. 5.) (r) BRUNTON v. HAWKES. [1821]

A patent was granted for improvements in the construction of ships' anchors, windlasses, and chain cables. It was proved at the trial, that the windlasses and chain cables were new, but that the anchors had been before constructed and used. The patent was held bad for want of a consideration, upon the authority of Hill v. Thompson. Abbott, C.J., said: "The consideration is the entirety of the improvement of the three; and if it turns out there is no novelty in one of the improvements, the consideration fails in the whole, and the patentee is not entitled to the benefit of that other part of his invention." (4 B. & Ald. 552.) Best, J., based his judgment expressly upon the ground of fraud. He said the patentee had "taken out his patent for more than he is entitled to; and I am of opinion that that avoids the patent in toto. For the King is deceived; the patentee is represented to have the merit of inventing two things, whereas he has discovered only one; and the Crown might have considered the discovery, as to both, a sufficient ground for granting a patent, when it would not have thought so of the discovery of one alone. . . . The united consideration upon which the whole grant was made, is therefore void, and, consequently, the grant itself is void." (Ib. 558.)

(8) BLOXAM v. ELSEE. [1827]

Action for the infringement of a patent for "a machine for

making paper in single sheets, without seam or joinings, from 1 foot to 12 feet and upwards wide, and from 1 foot to 45 feet and upwards in length." It appeared in evidence, that the machine was so constructed as to be capable of producing paper of one definite width only, and that in order to vary the width a new machine was required. It was held by the Court of King's Bench, that the meaning of the patentee's representation was, that paper of various widths might be obtained by one and the same machine; and, as that representation, which was a material one, was not true, the consideration for the grant had failed, and the patent was void. (6 B. & C. 169; 9 Dow. & Ry. 215.)

(8) STURTZ v. DE LA RUE. [1828]

The patent was "for certain improvements in copper and other plate printing." The specification declared that "the nature of the invention consisted in putting a glazed or enamelled surface on paper, to be used for copper and other plate printing, by means of whitelead and size, whereby the finer lines of the engraving are better exhibited than heretofore, and also in a mode of polishing the said enamel, and the impression after it has been drawn from the plate. Lord Lyndhurst, L.C.: "The description in the patent must unquestionably give some idea, and, so far as it goes, a true idea of the alleged invention, though the specification may be brought in aid to explain it. The title in this patent is for certain improvements in copper and other plate printing.' Copper-plate printing consists of processes involving a great variety of circumstances; the paper must be of a particular description before it is used, it must be damped; it must remain damp a certain time, and must be placed in a certain temperature; the plate must be duly prepared, and duly applied, and various processes must be gone through, before the impression is drawn off and brought to a finished state. An improvement in any one of those circumstances,-in the preparation of the paper, for instance, or the damping it, &c.-may truly be called an improvement in copper-plate printing." (5 Russ. 322.)

(t) FELTON v. GREAVES. N. P. [1829]

A patent was granted for "a machine for an expeditious and correct mode of giving a fine edge to knives, razors, scissors, and other cutting instruments." As the machine described in the specification would not do for sharpening scissors, the patent was held void. (3 C. & P. 611.)

(u) MORGAN v. SEAWARD. [1837]

The patent was taken out "for certain improvements in steam engines and in machinery for propelling vessels; which improvements are applicable to other purposes." The jury found that the alleged invention was not an improvement in steam engines. Parke, J., delivering the judgment of the Court, said: "Upon the authorities we feel obliged to hold that the patent is void, upon the ground of fraud on the Crown. . . A patent for two or more

inventions, when one is not new, is void altogether, as was held in Hill v. Thompson, and Brunton v. Hawkes; for, although the statute invalidates a patent for want of novelty, and, consequently, by force of the statute, the patent would be void as far as related to that which was old, yet the principle on which the patent has been held to be void altogether, is, that the consideration for the grant is the novelty of all, and the consideration failing, or, in other words, the Crown being deceived in its grant, the patent is void, and no action maintainable upon it." (1 Web. P. C. 196; 2 M. & W. 561; Mur. & H. 60; 1 Jur. 529.)

(v) STEAD v. WILLIAMS. N. P. [1843]

Action for the infringement of a patent "for making or paving public streets and highways, and public and private roads, courts and bridges, with timber or wooden blocks." The defendants pleaded, inter alia, "that the title, in its claim, was too large, uncertain, inapplicable, inexplicable, inconsistent, vague and ambiguous, and at variance with the specification." Cresswell, J., referring to this, said: "Whether it is too vague or not is rather a matter of law than anything else, and upon that I also say that I am in favour of the plaintiff. I think that it is not too vague, and therefore I advise you to find that issue for the plaintiff." (2 Web. P. C. 137.)

(w) COOK v. PEARCE. [1844]

The patent was taken out "for improvements in carriages," and the invention was an improvement in German shutters, which could only be used in some kinds of carriages:-Held, that, by reason of the title of the invention being too large and general, the patent was void. (8 Q. B. 1050; 12 L. J., Q. B. 190; 7 Jur. 765.) This decision was reversed on appeal. Tindal, C.J., delivering the judgment of the Exchequer Chamber, said: "The mere vagueness of the title appears to us to be an objection that may well be taken on the part of the Crown, before it grants the patent, but to afford no ground for avoiding the patent after it has been granted. If such title did not agree with the specification when enrolled, or if there had been any fraud practised on the Crown, in obtaining the patent with such title, the patent in those cases might, undoubtedly, be held void. Any evidence of a design on the part of the inventor to choose a vague and general title, in order that he might avail himself, at the time of the enrolling of the specification, of an invention not discovered by him at the time of taking out the patent, or in order to prevent other subjects of the Queen from availing themselves of a discovery made by them, upon the ground of its falling within the range of the general terms of the title, although such invention was different from that for which the patent was really and in truth taken out, might afford such proof of fraud upon the Crown and such injury to the subject, as that the vagueness and generality of the title in such case might avoid the patent. But, in the present case, no such evidence was given, nor was