Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

mined the angle. That clearly speaks of an invention for A. D. 1836. enabling a party to use paddle wheels for propelling vessels, which may be adjusted in such a way as that they may enter and come out of the water in angles the best adapted to give effect to the power of the engine, that is to say, at the angle a, if that shall be the best position for giving full effect to the power of the engine, or at the angle b, if that shall hereafter by experiment be determined to be the proper angle. It appears from his statement here, that the proper angle was a matter of considerable doubt at that time; and therefore he does not profess to set down an individual angle as the best, which appears to have been one of the ideas of the defendant, as to the effect of the plaintiff's specification. But he says, I will give you a method of enabling the paddle wheels to enter and come out of the water, with the position the best adapted for giving full effect to the power of the engine. Then at the end of the specification, after having described the manner in which it is to be done, he says, that his claim is "for the mode hereinbefore described of giving the required angle to the paddles," (that is, any angle which may be required by the person ordering the machinery), "by means of the rods g, h, i, j, and k, the bent stems marked f, the disc a, and the crank b." Now, I do not think that means he is to give you a machine, the angle of which may now be a, and now b, but that if you wish to have a machine, the paddles of which shall enter at angle a, which you tell him, and go out at angle b, which you tell him, he ought to be able to construct a machine which shall answer to your order. That I take to be what the inventor says he has enabled the public to do by means of his specification and plan. He then describes the invention. In fig. 4, you have the shape of the stem, and a particular angle is mentioned, but it is obvious that that is not an angle to which the parties are necessarily to be confined. Then he says, "g, h, i, j, and k, are connecting-rods attached at one of their ends by pins or bolts, r, to the bent stems, f, of the float boards, and the other ends of all these rods, excepting g, are attached to the disc, a, by pins or bolts, s, as shown in fig. 5." The only observation is, that he gives no dimensions; he fixes no points either for the centre of the eccentric, or for the crank to which the eccentric centre is attached; therefore, if those can only be ascertained by experiments subsequently to be made, then the specification is bad. The whole in some degree turns upon the length of the rods, and the position of the centre of the eccentric. The principle upon which these parties proceed, and upon which all the inventions in that respect proceed, is, that the wheel with its spokes, to which the floats are attached, turns round on an axis, and the floats are made to turn by means of an eccentric, and therefore the floats bend as the wheel revolves, and they bend

Alderson, B., to the jury.

in a particular manner according as the floats are disposed, and according to the position of the centre of the eccentric, by which they are regulated. They are regulated by means of a fixed bar, which is attached to the centre of the eccentric disc. The others are moveable boards, which are attached apparently to the circumference of that same disc, and the whole is made to revolve by the fixed bar being attached to a fixed point of the wheel itself, and therefore the revolution of the wheel forcing that fixed point round, turns round the eccentric disc, and with it changes continually the position of all those rods which are affixed to the circumference of that disc, and according to their being on one or the other side of that disc, they operate on the respective float boards to which they are attached. All that turns upon the position of the eccentric axis, and the length of the respective rods operating through the medium of this centre upon the respective float boards; now the question is, whether in the absence of any statement as to the dimensions of these different parts, and of any directions for finding the centre of the eccentric, you think the specification is sufficient or not, and that must be determined by the evidence which has been given by the witnesses on the one side and on the other.

reason.

Now, gentlemen, you cannot treat the actual picture which is given in the drawing as any guide to the particular angle, or to the particular position of the eccentric; and for this simple If that were the criterion, then the substance of the invention would be the particular angle contained in the particular drawing, and, in order to show an infringement, they ought to have shown that Mr. Seaward's wheel entered the water at the same angle as the angle described by the drawing, and therefore, in that case, you would be bound to find the first issue for the defendant, namely, that there was no infringement. If, however, you treat the picture or the drawing as only an illustration of the invention, and not as confining the invention to the particular angle there described, then you ought to find in the specification some directions, which should enable you to construct the machine in a new form, or you ought to be satisfied that without any instructions a workman of ordinary and competent skill and knowledge would be able to do it. Now I do not think that Mr. Carpmael gives any evidence to that point; but Mr. Brunel says, "I have read the specification, and I think I could construct by it a machine at any required angle without difficulty." You see he says, "I think I could construct by it a machine at any required angle without difficulty:" but whether Mr. Brunel could do it or not, is not the point. I dare say Mr. Brunel, the inventor of the block machinery, could invent any thing of this sort the moment it was suggested to him, but that is not the criterion. The question is, whether a man of ordinary knowledge and skill, bringing that ordinary

knowledge and skill to bear upon the subject, would be able to A. D. 1836. do it.

fication must be

excluded.

Then the evidence of Mr. Park is much more material. He says, "I could without any difficulty make the machine so that the paddles could enter the water at any angle." He prepared the models which have been used. Now the criterion is, whether at the time when the specification was introduced to the world, Mr. Park would have been able to construct the machine with his ordinary knowledge and skill, without the peculiar Information acknowledge he has since obtained upon the subject from being other source quired from any employed to make the models for Mr. Morgan, because it would than the specinot be at all fair to allow your verdict to be influenced by knowledge so acquired; but he says, with his ordinary knowledge and skill, he could without difficulty construct a wheel, so that the paddles should enter the water at any angle. He says, if Reasonable the diameter of the wheel is given, which it is fair should be given, and the immersion of the float, and that is also fair to be given, he could do it. Those are reasonable data for him to require, and if with his ordinary skill and knowledge, and without that peculiar knowledge which he has obtained in consequence of his connexion with the plaintiffs and with this cause he could do it, that would be evidence on which you would be entitled to place reliance. Then he tells you how he could do it now, I do think it would have been a vast deal better if the specification had given us the same information, for that is what a specification ought to do (f).

The specification ought to contain a full description of the way in which it is to be done. The question really is, whether, upon the whole evidence, you are of opinion that the specification does fairly and fully and properly give to the public that information which the public are entitled to receive, that is to say, whether it tells them, without having recourse to experiments, how to do it, or whether it even tells them what is the course their experiments ought to take-to what point their examinations and experiments should be directed. He says, he could do it with the skill he possesses; and he has described the manner in which he proposes to do it. He says, I have

(f) The learned judge read over and commented on the evidence of the witness at great length. The witness stated, "That he took the rods of unequal lengths, that he wanted a fourth point for the centre of a circle, the circumference of which should pass through the three points already obtained (viz. the ends of the three rods), that centre of the eccentric which was to govern the whole. I do this in the ordinary way; any geometrician would know how to do it; I proportion the ends to the necessary lengths." The specification says nothing as to the lengths of the rods, or about a fourth point, or centre of the eccentric, or as to the circumstance regulating the lengths, or as to the size of the disc, to which, at some part

[ocr errors]

data must be

given.

or other, the rods were to be affixed. Upon these several points the learned judge remarked, that if stems and rods are spoken of generally, the natural inference was that they were to be of equal lengths; it was much to be regretted that the specification should give no directions as to these points for the assistance of those who were to be guided by it hereafter. That it would be a question for the jury, whether such a specification was a fair and reasonable statement of the manner of doing it; since he who directs the public ought to have stated these various particulars; otherwise, how was it to be known but by experiments, of what lengths the rods were to be, or at what angles they were to be fixed from the disc and from each other?

Alderson, B., to the jury.

discarded.

seen this drawing;" then he produces a drawing, and he says, "this represents my plan of drawing it. An engineer of competent skill would have no difficulty in doing it." His doing it himself I do not consider so material, but he says an engineer of competent skill would have no difficulty in doing it. That is material.

Then when that drawing was shown, some of the gentlemen appearing on behalf of the defendants drew an angle upon it as the angle of entering, and asked him how that could be done. No doubt his principle would enable him to work out any angle, but there are a set of angles which would cause the centre of the eccentric to go beyond the wheel itself, which, therefore, it is impossible to carry into effect, but those angles are such as All extreme or would not be required in ordinary practice by any persons. You exaggerated cases should be should discard on both sides all exaggerated cases, and look to the substance of the thing. If you think in substance that the information really communicated would be enough in all ordinary cases, or in such cases as are likely to occur, then that would do; but if it is not a clear statement, and if it does not give such information as will render it unnecessary for parties to make experiments, then the specification would in that respect be insufficient. It is most important that patentees should be taught that they are bound to set out fully and fairly what their invention is, for, suppose a person were to make an invention, and get a right of making it for fourteen years, to the exclusion of all other persons, it would be a very great hardship upon the public if he were to be allowed to state his specification in such a way, that at the expiration of the term of his patent, he might laugh at the public, and say, I have had the benefit of my patent for fourteen years, but you, the public, shall not now carry my invention into effect, for I have not shown you how it is to be done. I have got my secret, and I will keep it.

Mr. George Cottam says, "it is a common problem to find a centre from three given points, and a person of ordinary engineering skill ought to be able to do that." The question is, whether it ought not to be suggested to him by the specification, that that is the problem to be solved. Then Mr. Curtis says, "I have made wheels on this plan." You see he made the two wheels which were sent to the Venice and Trieste Company, but those were made under the direction of Mr. Galloway, the inventor. Now, it somewhat detracts from the weight due to his testimony, not as to his respectability, but as to the value of his evidence to you, that he had received the verbal instructions of Mr. Galloway. It may be, that he could do it because of his practice under Mr. Galloway; and it must be recollected that people in other places would not have that advantage. He says, he would not have any difficulty in doing it; and he says, "I should not consider my foreman a competent workman

unless he were able to make the wheel from the specification A. D. 1836. and drawings." He says, "I could alter the angle by altering the cranks." The question is not, whether he could do that, but whether he could alter the angle to a particular angle by altering the cranks in a particular way, that is, whether, having the angle given to him, he could make the alteration that was desired. Then Mr. Joseph Clement says, he is a mechanic, and did the work of Mr. Babbage's calculating machine; that he has seen the model of the steam engine and paddle wheels. He speaks of the similarity of the plaintiffs' and defendants' wheels, and says, “I could make the machine from the specification and drawing. The float ought to enter the water at a tangent to the epicycloid." That is only his opinion as to the most convenient angle. The real motion of the boat is this. The wheel keeps turning round and round on its own axis; during that time the boat has a progressive motion. The wheel, therefore, has a double motion; therefore every point of the wheel does not move in a circle but in a cycloid, that being the curve described by the rolling of a circle on a flat surface. He says, it should enter at a tangent, that is, that the angle should be such that it will enter the water perpendicularly, in consequence of the motion of the boat, and of the point of the wheel. He says, in like manner it ought to go up. That is probably a very correct view of the case. He says, "I should have no difficulty in constructing a float to enter at any angle ordinarily required. A man, properly instructed in mechanics, would have no difficulty in doing it." That is his evidence, which it is material for you to consider; and he is a mechanic himself.

Then Henry Mornay, a young gentleman in Mr. Morgan's employment, where he has been apparently studying the construction of engines, speaks of a circumstance which does appear to me to be material. He says, Mr. Morgan in practice makes his rods of different lengths. He must necessarily do so, in order that the floats may follow at the same angle as that at which the driving float enters the water. The problem which Mr. Park solved is a problem applying to three floats only; but it appears that the other floats will not follow in the same order, unless some adjustment of the rods is made. Now, suppose it was to be desired that the floats should all enter the water at the given or required angle, if one should go in at one angle, and one at another, the operation of the machine would not be uniform; and the specification means that the party constructing a wheel, should be able to make a wheel the floats of which shall all enter at the same angle, and all go out at the same angle. Now in order in practice to carry that into effect, if there are more than three floats, something more than Mr. Park's problem would be required; and Mr. Mornay says actually, that

« ZurückWeiter »