« ZurückWeiter »
In the House the discovery of such an equivalent was made after the use of of Lords. July 31, 1855. the carburet as a distinct metallic substance had been some
short time in operation. It was itself a most valuable discovery, and would have legitimately formed the subject of a
new patent. The costly nature of the substance claimed in the Such produc- patent might, and probably would, have prevented its use altoa new disco
discouret gether. And if at the date of the specification it was known to very.; if not, the plaintiff that by the use of the two common substances, specification bad.
well known in commerce, more than one hundred fold cheaper than carburet of manganese, the same result precisely would be obtained as by the use of that material, the specification would
have been bad as not truly disclosing the invention. The invention On the short ground, therefore, that the invention claimed is
for the use of a particular metallic substance, namely, carburet particular substance in defi of manganese, in certain definite proportions, according to the nite propor.
weight of the steel under fusion, and that no such substance, nor any equivalent for it, known to be such at the date of the specification, was used by the defendant, I think that there was no evidence of infringement, so that the ruling of the learned judge at the trial was correct. I therefore think that there ought to be judgment for the plaintiff in error, and I shall move your Lordships accordingly.
Lord BROUGHAM: My Lords, in this case the question was respecting the infringement of a patent, the specification of which, taken with the patent itself (which as one of the learned judges observed, generally gives as little information as possible, prior to the specification), showed that the invention, the infringement of which is complained of in the action now brought to your Lordships' bar, consists of exposing, with one to three per cent. of their weight of carburet of manganese, fragments of iron in a crucible at the proper heat for melting the materials. And the disclaimer of the patentee states, that he does not “ claim the use of any such mixture of cast and malleable iron, or malleable iron and carbonaceous matter, as any part of his invention, but only” (and here is the gist of the invention specified) “ the use of carburet of manganese in any process for the conversion of iron into cast steel.” Then he proceeds in the last place to claim the employment of carburet of manganese in preparing an improved cast steel.
The question, therefore, is, whether there was here evidence to go to the jury of an infringement by the defendant, the plaintiff in error here, of the right granted by the patent, by the use, not of carburet of manganese, but of oxide of manganese and carbon, which it is contended was equivalent to using car
buret of manganese, inasmuch as carburet of manganese is e admitted to be a compound of carbonaceous matter (or call it
carbon) and oxide of manganese containing manganese, and carbon exhibited to that oxide of manganese, and, uniting with