PARKINSONV.SIMON

1895 Reports of Patent Design and Trade Mark Cases  
Patent. -Action for infrinqoment. -Construction Qf Speoiftcation.>« Oombination.s-Su bordinate claims .-Anticipation. The Patentee of an inoentiori of "Improvements in sieves for ]Jurijying " gra/in, " bro'tght an action for infringement thereof. There were four claims. 10 The first two were for combinations "in apparatus such as described" of tapering or parallel sieves, respectively, with side deposit surfaces, 8tlbstantially for the purposes described and illustrated in the drawings. The
more » ... e drawings. The third ioas li similar one, but for placing the depositing-surface beside the sieve. The fourtk was for a combination with the sieve and, side deposit surfaces of a deflector, 15 substantially as described and illustrated. There were two drawings, one (in elevation) shoioinq the defiector, and the other (in plan), " with the hood removed." showing only the sieve. Held, at the trial, that the first tUJO claims uiere anticipated, and that the fourtli was for a special combination, was valid, and had not been injringed. . 20 The Plaintiffs appealed. Held, by the Court of Appeal, that the first tuio claims uiere for combinations of taperinq and paralic! sieves with side deposit surfaces, but without a deflector; that the patent uias invalid because the invention so claimed was anticipated or useless , that the fourtli claim ioas for a special combination, which had not been anticipated, and, had the patent 25 beenfor such alone, it would not have beeninfrinqed, The Plaintiffs appealed to the House oj Lords. Held, that the Specification must be read and construed as a tohole , that the first three claims were for an invention which did not include the deflector, an,d had been anticipated and the patent was therefore invalid. 30 On the question of infringement, their Lordships (although the Appellants' argument raised doubts in the minds of some of them) declined to express any opinion and did not call on the Riepondent. The practice of giving decisions (which only amounted to dicta) on issues not necessary to decide on appeal wañ ot to be recommended, and will not be adopted by the House.
doi:10.1093/rpc/12.21.403 fatcat:ritpbddm6ve5ziokre6rbrjzau