25

I.—4a

to disconformity when the law applicable thereto is borne in mind, in our opinion, comes to nothing. In the case of Gadd v. the Mayor of Manchester (9, "Patent Cases," at p. 529), Lord Justice A. L. Smith stated the law upon this subject, and we do not restate here what he said therein. The plaintiffs, in their provisional specification, state the nature of their invention as being that they treat the powdered (i.e., crushed) ore with a solution of cyanide of potassium till nearly all the gold is dissolved. In a provisional specification no claim is ever made by the patentee ; he has not to state therein what he claims or how he carries out his invention, but he must state its nature in such a way that the law officers may see what it is, and so that the identity of its subject-matter with that of the complete specification which is to come thereafter may be ascertained. In the complete specification the patentee has to do much more. Not only has he to state therein what his invention is, but ho must particularly describe how his invention is to be carried out and performed, and what he claims ; and then comes the time, applying this rule of law to the present case, for the plaintiffs to state the proportions in which they find that the cyanide of potassium is to be used in the solution to carry out their invention ; and that is what they have done. We cannot hold that there is any disconformity, as argued by the defendants, assuming the specification to be read as the plaintiffs desire that it should be. But still there remains the question as to what is the true reading of the specification with Claim No. 1 in it. Sir Richard Webster argued that Claim 1, with the words at the end, " substantially as hereinbefore described," limited that claim to the quantity of cyanide of potassium to be used in the solution to be applied to the ore in the same way as Claim 2 did, and he argued that Claim 2 was inserted as being only applicable to the richer ores mentioned in the specification, and that in neither claim was the use of any solution of cyanide of potassium— i.e., cyanide of potassium and ore—claimed. We cannot read the specification in this way. We would if we could, but we cannot do so. It appears to us that Claims 1 and 2 are independent claims, having application to the whole specification, the firsu making claim for the use of any cyanide of potassium in solution, irrespective of amount, substantially as therein described, and the second making claim for the use of a dilute solution containing a specified quantity of cyanide of potassium substantially as therein described. It appears to us impossible to discard either one or the other, or to hold that both mean the same thing, or that Claim 1 applies to one part of the specification and Claim 2 to another, for this, in our judgment, is not the true construction of the specification as framed. If the first claim had been omitted or disclaimed we should not have been faced with the difficulty we are ; but as it is in the specification we are unable to read it as the plaintiffs desire to do, and for this reason, and for this alone, we must with reluctance give judgment for the defendants, and dismiss this appeal, with costs. Mr. Moulton: Your Lordships have found for the plaintiffs on the great bulk of the issues. The costs of the issues that you have found in favour of the plaintiffs will, I presume, be the plaintiffs'. Lord Justice A. M. Smith : You ought to have all the costs about infringement. Mr. Moulton : But about the validity on the ground of anticipation. My learned friends have got a certificate that they have proved certain anticipations and certain objections. Perhaps your Lordships would allow us to come before the Court with regard to that. Lord Justice Lindley : What did Mr. Justice Romer do about these details ? Mr. Moulton : Your Lordships see that he gave us the costs of infringement, but he gave the defendants a certificate that they had proved their objections. Now, my Lords, the only objection that your Lordships have found proved, is one based on the construction of the specification with regard to the first claim. The learned Judge in the Court below held Simpson and Rae to be anticipations, so I should submit that, perhaps, we had better come before one of your Lordships. Mr. Neville : I will only mention this (my friend will correct me if I am wrong) that I do not know any exception to the rule laid down by the Court some time ago, that where the Court dismisses the appeal, it does not deal with the costs in the Court below. Lord Justice Lindley : I was thinking of that. Mr. Moulton : Your Lordships did it in the Deeley case. Lord Justice Lindley : Can we discharge the certificate ? Mr. Moulton : Your Lordships will have to discharge the certificate if your Lordships find that certain objections were not proved which the learned Judge found were proved. His Lordship certified the whole of the objections. Lord Justice A. L. Smith: If you like to come before me some time after Easter, and you both put down what you want, if I have any difficulty 1 will adjourn it into Court, but if not I will decide it myself. Lord Justice Lindley : It will not do to do nothing in a case like this. Mr. Moulton : It may mean that we should wish to ask your Lordships for leave to disclaim. Therefore, so far as that is concerned, perhaps your Lordships will allow this to be adjourned, so that we could come before your Lordships at a later date. Lord Justice Lindley : Are we the right people to come to for leave to disclaim? Mr. Moulton : It would have to be done by your Lordships, because it is now before this Court. However, it is a point we should like to consider, if your Lordships will take it that it is adjourned, and not concluded. Then we can bring all these matters before your Lordships. Lord Justice A. L. Smith : Yes, we will adjourn it. Mr. Neville : Then I understand it is adjourned until the first day in next term. Lord Justice Lindley: The first day you can get before Lord Justice A. L. Smith after the vacation. He will be kind enough to hear you in his private room, and if he has any difficulty he will adjourn it into Court.

This is the Exhibit marked " B," referred to in the declaration of Percy Howard Henderson, made before me this Ist day of May, 1895. Joseph Renal. Lord Mayor of London. 4—l. 4a.