Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Judgment.

this clause which will support the patent; and though I myself still entertain great doubt whether such is the true construction, I am not prepared to say that it is not, and I am very glad, that in so meritorious an invention as this is admitted to be, in this view of the case, the inventor will not be deprived of his reward.

The word "effect" occurs four times in the specification; and it is a just rule of construction to judge of the meaning of a particular phrase by taking the whole instrument together. In the first sentence, the patentee, speaking of the temperature being as high as that of "red heat," adds, that "so high a temperature is not absolutely necessary to produce a beneficial effect.” Then he adds, that the receptacle "may be made of iron, but as the effect does not depend upon the nature of the material, other metals or convenient materials may be used." Here he cannot mean that all metals or convenient materials will equally be heated by application of external fire; for some heat more easily, others more slowly; but he means that the quality of the heated air, whether heated in an iron vessel or any other (if heated at a proper temperature), will not materially alter the beneficial effect on the furnace to which it is applied. "Effect" here, then, is equivalent to a beneficial effect; and the passage is this" but as the effect" to be a beneficial effect" does not depend on the nature of the material," and so forth. The same is, we think, obviously the meaning of the word "effect" in the concluding sentence of the specification. The manner of applying the heat to the air vessel is, however, immaterial to the effect, if it be kept at a proper temperature: in other words, the effect will be a beneficial effect on the furnace, whatever be the manner in which you apply heat to the air vessel, provided only that you so apply it as to raise its temperature sufficiently.

Then, if so, it is not unreasonable, we think, to construe the word "effect," in the sentence on which this question turns, in a similar manner, and to hold it to mean an assertion by the patentee, that though the size of the vessel must be regulated as directed, yet the shape of the air vessel is immaterial to the effect; that is to say, any shape will produce a beneficial effect, and may be adapted to the local circumstances. Now, if this be so, still it casts upon him the necessity of proving to the satisfaction of the jury, that any shape in which the air vessel could reasonably be expected to be made by a competent workman would produce a beneficial effect, and be a valuable discovery. On the present occasion we are bound, as to this point, by the finding of the jury, who have arrived at this conclusion of fact; and if they are right, we think the verdict was not correctly entered for the defendant on this fourth issue, but that it should have been entered for the plaintiff. The rule, therefore, must be absolute.

There is another point, which I need only notice shortly, which

was made by the Attorney General, as to the title of the patent. In the Exchequer He contended that the title of the patent was itself defective, A. D. 1841. and did not agree with the invention; and he insisted also that it was competent to raise that objection upon the issue raised upon the fourth plea-and probably it was. But we have already intimated, in the course of the argument, that we thought that that objection was not well founded. The title of the patent is for the "improved application of air." Though that is am- An ambiguous biguous, it is sufficiently explained by the specification, and is title if explained by the specificanot at variance with it, as was the case in the King v. Wheeler. tion will not Therefore we think the verdict on the fourth plea must be entered for the plaintiff.

vitiate.

Rule absolute.

Cor. Lord Lyndhurst, L. C.

Motion to revive

The Lord Chancellor LYNDHURST: This was a motion to re- In Chancery. vive an injunction. The injunction had been dissolved by the late Dec. 14, 1841. chancellor, the defendants undertaking to keep an account, and injunction. the plaintiffs either to bring or to proceed in an action at law, for Injunction rethe purpose of trying the validity of the patent. The action has vived as matter since been tried, and judgment has been entered up in the Court judgment in an of Exchequer. It is, under these circumstances, almost a matter action at law. of course that the injunction should be allowed.

On the part of the defendants it has been stated, that the learned judge who tried the cause, and who was one of the judges of the court where the question was finally decided, dissented from the opinion of the rest of the court; and it is also stated, on the part of the defendants, that from the course which the proceedings took, they were deprived of their right of bringing a writ of error.

I have, in consequence of these objections, thought it my duty to read the report of the trial, and of the proceedings in the Court of Exchequer. I do not find that the learned judge, to whom reference was made, did dissent from the opinion of the rest of the court. He said, undoubtedly, that it was a question of nicety, and he entertained great doubts with respect to the question; but he himself delivered the judgment of the court, and said, in the course of delivering that judgment, that he could not say that the construction put by the court upon the specification was wrong.

With respect to the other objection that was made, namely, that the defendants were deprived, by the course of proceeding, of bringing a writ of error, the facts of the case appear to be these. Towards the conclusion of the trial, the learned judge suggested as the proper course to be pursued, that the facts

of course, after

Motion to revive should be stated in the shape of a special case, or that they injunction. should be put upon the record, in order that the case might go, if necessary, to the last resort. The counsel for the plaintiffs assented to this; at least he assented to have the facts stated in the shape of a special case, with a view to its being afterwards turned into a special verdict, in order that the question might be upon the record. The counsel, however, for the defendants, the late Attorney General, finding the opinion of the learned judge with him, thought that a different course would be most advantageous for his client, and he adopted it. He insisted that the verdict should be entered on the issues; and I think in pursuing that course, he waived any further right to a writ of error, and made his election to abide by the decision of the Court of Exchequer. Under such circumstances, I do not think it reasonable, the decision of the court being against him, that he should now turn round, and say, that I ought to have the advantage of the other course of proceeding at the expense of the plaintiffs.

I am the less disposed to depart from the usual course in cases of this kind, after having attentively considered the judgment of the court as compared with the specification. I think the construction put upon the specification is a reasonable construction. The whole question turns upon the meaning of the word "effect" in the specification, as to the sense in which that word was used by the patentee; and I think, adverting to the other parts of the specification, that the construction put upon it by the Court of Exchequer is a reasonable and proper construction; and I think, adverting to the last clause of the specification, that that must be the meaning of the word effect in that clause; and that, therefore, it would be difficult, consistently with the rules of law, by which an instrument must be construed taking it altogether, to have put another construction on the instrument.

An objection was taken, arising out of the form of pleading, by Mr. Roupell; but it does not appear to me that there is any validity in that objection. The case is of this description. The plaintiffs allowed the defendants to use the patent, by way of trial, for a certain period. They did use it for that period, and kept an account, and rendered that account. They were allowed to make this trial with a view afterwards of taking a license, and paying, if they thought proper, a certain allowance for using the patent. They did not take the license. They afterwards continued to use it. They refused to render any further account, in consequence of which notice was given to them to discontinue using the patent; and after that notice was served upon them, it was clear, if they continued the use of the patent, and they did, they would be liable to an action, and liable also to a proceeding in this court, and an injunction. For these reasons, I am of opinion that this injunction ought to be allowed. Injunction revived.

CRANE'S PATENT.

Letters patent, 28th Sept. 1836 (7 W. 4), to George Crane, for Title. "an improvement in the manufacture of iron."

I, the said George Crane, do hereby declare the nature of my Specification. invention, and the manner in which the same is to be performed, are fully described and ascertained in and by the following statement thereof, that is to say: According to the ordinary practice of obtaining iron from iron stone, mine, or ore, in this country, the iron stone, mine, or ore, either calcined, or in the raw state, according to its respective qualities, is put into suitable furnaces with coke, produced from bituminous coal, formerly called pit coal, in contradistinction to charcoal produced from wood, which was the fuel employed in this country previous to the introduction of pit coal in the smelting and manufacture of iron. Now as there are districts in which are to be found large quantities of iron stone, mine, or ore, in the immediate neighbourhood of what is known as stone coal, or anthracite coal, it has long been considered as a desirable object to employ such coal for the smelting and manufacture of iron, and although attempts have been made to apply such description of coal in the smelting and manufacture of iron, the same have failed and have been abandoned. In addition to such advantages to be obtained from the using of anthracite, or stone coal, in the districts where such coal is found, together with iron stone, mine, or ore, from the practice I have had, I am induced to believe such coal, from its properties, will be found to produce a quality of iron more nearly resembling iron obtained by the aid of vegetable charcoal. Now, the object of my invention is, the application of such anthracite, or stone coal, combined with a hot air blast in the smelting or manufacture of iron from iron stone, mine, or ore. And in order to give the best information in my power for enabling a workman to carry out my invention, I will describe the process or means pursued by me, and in doing so, I will suppose the furnace of an ordinary construction to be in blast, and that the machinery and apparatus are adapted for the application of hot air blast, as is well understood and extensively applied in many places where the ordinary fuel (coke of bituminous coal, or the coal in a raw state) is employed in the manufacture of iron from iron stone, mine, or ore, and I have found that a furnace having suitable apparatus for heating the blast to about 600° of Fahrenheit a good arrangement for carrying out my invention; though so high a degree of temperature is not indispensably necessary, but I believe preferable. In charging such a furnace, I throw in about three hundred weight of anthracite, or stone coal, or

Specification. culm, to each five hundred weight of calcined argillaceous iron stone, with a proper quantity of flux, as if working with the coke of bituminous coal; such charging of the furnace, and the general working, with the exception of the using of anthracite, or stone coal, is to be pursued as if working with coke of bituminous coal; and I would remark that the quantities above given are such as I have hitherto employed in making the best qualities of pig iron, viz. No. 1, or No. 2, at my works, from the anthracite, stone coal, or culm, found in the neighbourhood of the Yniscedwyn Iron Works; but those quantities may be varied according to local circumstances, and the refractory nature of the iron stone, mine, or ore, or otherwise, to be reduced, and the quality of iron desired to be obtained, as is the case in ordinary working, and at the judgment and discretion of the manager, as heretofore: and I would remark that the anthracite, or stone coal, or culm, may be coked in like manner to bituminous coal, before charging the furnace; but from my experience I have not (so far as my practice goes in working with the coal obtained in my neighbourhood) found that such coking is necessary, or that a more advantageous result is obtained than in applying the anthracite, or stone coal, directly from the mine. And it is desirable to observe I have found it of advantage that the blast of hot air should be as free and unimpeded as possible, and from that account I have hitherto used only anthracite, or stone coal, the smaller parts of which would not pass through a sieve of an inch mesh, but where the pillar or volume of blast is considerable, say two pounds and upwards on the square inch, this precaution is not necessary.

Claim.

Having thus described the nature of my invention, and the manner of carrying the same into effect, I would have it understood, that I do not claim the using of a hot air blast separately in the smelting and manufacture of iron as of my invention, when uncombined with the application of anthracite, or stone coal, and culm; nor do I claim the application of anthracite, or stone coal, in the manufacture or smelting of iron, when uncombined with the using of hot air blast. But what I do claim as my invention is, the application of anthracite, or stone coal, and culm, combined with the using of hot air blast in the smelting and manufacture of iron, from iron stone, mine, or ore, as above described. In witness, &c. (a)

(a) The epochs in the history of the manufacture of iron, of which the above invention constitutes one, have already been briefly noticed, ante 16, n. The following inventions, relating to the use of anthracite, are referred to in the subsequent legal proceedings, as showing the previous attempts to apply that fuel in the manufacture of iron.

Letters patent, 23d June, 1904 (44 G. 3), to

Edward Martin, "for making of pig and cast iron of every description from iron stone, iron mine, and iron ore, and of remelting, preparing, and refining of pig and cast iron of every sort, and for the making of such pig and cast iron into wrought or bar iron, by using raw stone coal and culm, to be worked and made by blast."

Specification. I, the said Edward Martin, do hereby describe and ascertain the nature of my

« ZurückWeiter »