93

CHAPTER V.

THE TITLE.

WHEN an inventor prepares his petition to the Crown, praying for a grant of letters patent, he describes, in general terms, the nature of his invention; and this description, being transferred into the letters patent, is called the Title of the patent.

It is of great importance that the inventor should rightly frame his title, as many patents have been lost by inattention in this particular. Though the rules of the Commissioners of Patents require that the title should point out distinctly and specifically the nature and object of the invention, it is advisable to disclose the invention in as general terms as may be allowed, for two reasons: First, lest other persons who were about to specify should obtain a clue to it, and frame their specification so as to deprive the real inventor of the priority and the reward which are his right. Secondly, that the title may not disclose to any rival inventor, or manufacturer, information which may be used to the prejudice of the inventor, should his application for the patent be opposed. Instances of the nature referred to are not, it is true, of common occurrence; but they have occurred, and it is most desirable that an inventor should be cautious as to the language he uses. If the title is too general,-that is to say, if it extends to matters not included by the invention, the patent is bad; and if, on the other hand, it is too narrow, it excludes, by its very terms, something of which the inventor had a right to secure the monopoly.

The inventor must carefully avoid the use of language which will lay his title open to the charges of being "too large, uncertain, inapplicable, inexplicable, inconsistent, vague, ambiguous, and at variance with the specification"-charges which it appears from a reported case were once heaped upon an unfortunate title relating to the simple matter of paving with wood. If the title bears evidence upon its face of an intention to deceive the public as to the subject-matter of the invention, this is a point which may be urged before a jury with fatal effect, for their opinion may be taken as to the existence of such an intention. (Cook v. Pearce, 8 Q. B. 1044.)

To show the importance of framing an accurate title, we will cite a few instances where patents were vitiated by a blunder at the very beginning.

The title of the invention spoke of a tapering brush; the specification disclosed the invention of a brush, in which the bristles were of an unequal length, but there was no tapering to a point. The patent was held bad. (Rex v. Metcalf, 2 Stark. R. 249.)

The title was "certain improvements in the flageolet whereby the fingering will be rendered more easy, and notes produced that were never before produced." It appeared that only one new note was produced by the improved instrument, and this was held to be a fatal objection. (Bainbridge v. Wigley, Parl. Rep. 197.)

The title was, "A new and improved method of drying and preparing malt;" but the invention specified was a process of producing a colouring matter for beer, by submitting malt, prepared in the ordinary manner, to a high temperature. This patent was likewise held bad. (Rex v. Wheeler, 2 B. & Ald. 345.)

A patent was obtained for an improved method of lighting cities, towns, and villages; but it appeared that the invention consisted in the improvement of an old street-lamp. The title was held too general in its

terms, and the patent could not be supported. (Cochrane v. Smethurst, 1 Stark. 205.)

Another patent held bad, by reason of having too general a title, was that contested in the case of Campion v. Benyon (1 Carp. Rep. 418). The patent was for "a new and improved method of making double canvas and sailcloth with hemp and flax, or either of them, without any starch whatever;" but it appeared that double sailcloth had been made without starch before the patent, and the invention proved really to be a new method of preparing hemp and flax, with a view to its being woven into canvas and sailcloth.

The title of Felton's patent described the invention as a machine for giving an edge to knives, razors, scissors, and other cutting instruments; but the invention. appeared, from the specification, not to be applicable to scissors, and the patent was adjudged to be void. (Felton v. Greaves, 3 C. & P. 611.)

In Newall v. Elliott (10 Jur.. N. s. 955; S. C. 13 W. R. 11), Pollock, C. B., stated he had, when Attorney-General, refused an application for a patent for "An improvement in locomotion," such a title being too general.

On the other hand, the titles in the following cases were held sufficiently certain :-"Improvements in the manufacture of plated articles," when there was only a single improvement (Nickels v. Haslam, 8 Scott, N. R. 97). "A new or improved method of obtaining the reproduction of all the images received in the focus of the camera obscura," leaving it a matter of doubt whether the method was altogether a new one, or only an improvement (Beard v. Egerton, 3 C. B. 97). A process for more distinctly showing the finer lines of an engraving by means of a glazed surface on the paper designed to receive the impression, was held sufficiently described by the words, "Certain improvements in copper and other plate-printing" (Sturtz v.

De La Rue, 5 Russ. 322). Title, "Improvements in Carriages:" the specification described improvements in adapting German shutters to carriages. But as such shutters can only be applied to covered carriages, and the title spoke generally of carriages, it was contended that it was too large. After argument, it was held a sufficiently accurate title; Tindal, C. J., observing that it would endanger the validity of very many patents which have hitherto been free from exception, if the mere fact that their titles were given in such terms as to be capable of comprising other inventions besides that contained in the specification were sufficient to avoid them, in the absence of any proof of intention to commit a fraud on the Crown, or to deceive or mislead the public. (Cook v. Pearce, 8 Q. B. 1044.)

It

A patent was obtained for "improvements in machinery for the manufacture of bobbin net lace." was objected that the invention really was only for making a spot during a particular part of the process, and was useless where that addition was not wanted. The Court, however, overruled the objection. (Fisher v. Dewick, 1 W. P. C. 264.)

The title of a patent was for "Certain Improvements in the Doors and Sashes of Carriages." The patentee, in his specification, said, "I have shown my invention as applied to railway carriage-doors and windows, although they are equally applicable to the doors and windows of any other description of carriage or in any position where doors and windows are subject to jar and vibration." This was held not to extend his claim beyond the title (Oxley v. Holden, 8 C. B. N. s. 707). See also Newall v. Elliott (10 Jur. N. s. 954). The title and specification must be read together; and if the former should be ambiguous, the latter may explain it. Thus the title of Neilson's patent was an invention "for the improved application of air to pro

duce heat in furnaces where bellows or other blowing apparatus are required." The invention disclosed by the specification was the introduction into the furnace of air heated between the blowing-apparatus and the furnace; and it was held that this answered sufficiently well to the title (Neilson v. Harford, 1 W. P. C. 312, 373). The title must not represent the patentee to be the inventor of one thing, and the specification show him to be the inventor of another. A specification will not be allowed to comprise more than can be fairly found in the letters patent, and a claim in the specification of something not included in the grant renders the patent void. Thus, in Croll v. Edge (9 Scott, C. B. R. 479), the patent was granted for "certain improvements in the manufacture of gas, and in the apparatus used when transmitting and measuring gas." The specification contained a claim of an improved mode of making retorts; but as the claim fell neither under the head of manufacture of gas, nor apparatus used in transmitting or measuring gas, the patent was declared void.

H