FODENV. WALLIS AND STEVENS LD

1908 Reports of Patent Design and Trade Mark Cases  
Patent.-Action for infringement.-Construction of Specification.~Alleged anticipation.-Patent held to be valid, bu,t not to have been infringed.-Appeal dismissed. The owners of Letters Patent for· "Imp1•ovements in the construction of· 10 " automotor waggons and similar road vehicles," brought an action for infringement of the same, in which the Deferulants denied infringement and alleged the. invalidzty of the Patent on the ground of (inter alia) anticipation. The Olctim was for " a steam
more » ... for " a steam automotor waggon or similar steam-driven road . " vehicle the main frame of which is fm•med of two side girders bracketed or . 15 '" connected to the boiler at the smoke-box and at the fire-box end and carries ' "the steam engine (mounted upon the boiler) as well as the waggon bodJj, "substantially as herein described and illustrated." The merit of the invention . was that it allowed for the expansion and cuntraction of the boiler, and ' prevented it from being subjected to urulue st1·ains. It was held at the trial, ' 20 that the invention was a narrow one, and that the particular place and method . of attaching the boiler to the side girders, having the rigid connection at the front end of the boiler, and the connection allowing of expansion and contraction at the rear end of the boiler, were of the essence of the invention, and that on-~ this construction of the Specification the Patent was valid, but had not been · 25 infringed by the Defendants' vehicle which differed among other respects in · having an attachment of the boiler at the fire-box end giving horl.:ontal rigidity, and having a special method of providing for expansion and contrac~ tion at the smoke-box end of the boiler. The action was dismissed, the Plaintiffs being given the costs of the action so far as related to validity, and the Defen-, 30 dants being given the costs so far as related to infringement, with a set-offj a Certificate that the validity of the Patent had come into question was granted .. The Plainti;ffs {J,p:pealed on the question of infringement, 3 s ~ by guest on June 6, 2016 http://rpc.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from
doi:10.1093/rpc/25.26.783 fatcat:4f2y3rvoe5h3dktbewokdb7uby