IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A PATENT BY A.R.

467 Vol. XL.] REPORTS OF PATENT, DESIGN, AND TRADE MARK CASES [No. 15. In the Matter of three Applications for Paienie by R. case. I do not for a. moment sa:y that, this case i~, obvious apart from the' guidance, to which I have referred, from the three reported cases. It, is just the class of case which is. likely to be the subject of appeal, as. .wae Cooper's ease, Ward's case, and Johnson's case, but with the guidance of :> the .principlee applied by the Law Officers in those cases I think that this, is. not, an invention within the definition which I have to apply, and I therefore dismiss the appeal. This Judgment will apply to the other two a,ppeals. Before THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL. 10 April 23rd, IH23. IN THE rVlATTER OF AN ApPLICATION FOR A PATENT J3yA.R·. Application. for Grant of Pa,tent.-Invention.-Manner of Manufacture.Pa.tents and Designs Act, 1907, Section 93. On the 12t,h of July, 1920, an Application was made for at Patent in. respect. 15 of an invention entitled " Proc..ess. and apparatus for utilising impure gases or " exhaust gases containing carbonic acid." The g.~tCond Claim was as follows:" A method of utilising impure or exhaust gases containing carbonic acid, for " the treatmenb of plants with carbonic acid by installations such as that " specified in Claim 1, consisting in passing the gases through a chamber or20 "vessel in the presence of a salt solution capable of absorbing carbonic: acid, " for example, an akali carbonate solution, passing the, said solution into a " heating chamber or vessel in which the purified carbonic. acid is driven off " from the solution by heat and leading the purified carbonic acid by distributing " means to the neighbourhood of the plants to be treated.. " The third Claim 25 was :-" In a method of treating plants as. set forth in Claim 2, heating the " solution containing the carbonic acid to a degree sufficient to produce' steam " under pressure which conveys the carbonic acid to the outlet pipes for distri"bution and. upon condensation retains traces of injurious gases dissolved Objection was raised by the Examiner, on the ground that the., therein." 30 processes claimed in, Claims 2· and 3 did not constitute a, manner of manufacture within the meaning of Section 9'3 of the Patents and Designs Act, 1907. The other Claims were for apparatus, and were not objected to. The Supervising Examiner, acting for the Com,ptroILer-Ueneral, in his decision, said: " I aim of opinion. that as regards, Claims 2 and: 3, the alleged invention is. 35 "merely a system or method of horticulture for stimulating the growth of plants. " and does not constitute a. manner of new manufacture. The actual process " of purifying the gases is admittedly well known. These two Claims therefore " would appear to be claims for nothing more than the use of a. well-known " substenee, prepared ina, known manner, for a, particular purpose which is -488 No. 15.] REPOR1'S OF PATENT, DESIGN, AND TRADE MARK CASES [Vol. XL. In th : Mtiiter of an Ap'pLication for a Paient. by A.R. " also well known. It appears to me that the case falls within that of B.A.'s "Applica,tion (32 R.P.C. 345), and accordingly I refuse to accept the " Application." The Applicant lodged an appeal, which was heard by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL -on the 2,srd Off April, 19,23. 5 Mr. Edward Evans appeared as Agent, for the Applicant" and F. W. Durui {Senior Examiner) represented the Com.ptrollcr-Genetul, Sir THOMAS INSKIP S.-G.-This is an a,ppea.l from a decision of the Super.vising Examiner, who refused to accept the Application on the ground that the invention claimed by what was at the time of the hearing before, him Claim 2, 10 .and also Claim 3, was not, at manner of new manufacture, and the Supervising Exa,rnin-er based his decision upon, a. judgment of Sir Stanley Buckmaster, when Solicitor-General, in the matter of B.A. "s Application for a. Pai.eni , reported :in 32 R,.P.'C. at page. '348. The invention for which protection is claimed in this case is, as I understand 15 it, a process and apparatus for utilising impure gases for the purpose of treating plants, the impure gases having the carbonic. acid gas, which is. the useful gas, -extracted by the process which is described in the Specification. The Supervising Exaaniner disallowed Claims 2 and 3 on the ground which I halve stated. Claim 2 .has been abandoned, and a revised Claim corresponding to what was 20 formerly Claim 3 has now been 8U gges ted , and as amended, it reads :-" A ." method of treating plants with carbonic acid. gas by means of an installation ." as set forth in, Claim 1 in which the solution containing the carbonic acid is " heated to a degree sufficient, to produce steam under pressure which conveys ." the carbonic acid to the outlet pipeis for distribution and upon condensation 25 " retains traces of injurious gases dissolved therein." It has been pressed upon me that this is a, good claim for an invention as -being a manner of n8'W manufacture, because the production of steam under pressure, which is used to convey the carbonic acid to the outlet, pipes. for distl'ibution" was not contained in Claim 1, and constit.utes a. manner of new 30 manufacture for which protection ought, to be given. I aim unable to see that the production of steam under pressure, which is mentioned in what, I will now ,call Claim 2" the old Claim 3, is sufficiently definite to enable me to say that this is a manner of new manufacture. It, appears to me to be merely a statement of what, as I understand the matter, is really comprehended in Claim 1. 35 I was told. by Mr. Ecane, who a,p'pears on behalf of the Appellant, thab it is intended to produce steam under pressure, which is considerably greater than atmospheric pressure, and that, that is a new process which is used for this purpose. The view that I take is that the production of steam under pressure has of course, no novelty about. it" and the operation of the effect of steam, under 40 pressure has no novelty about, it. The mere suggestion that steam under -pressure will be produced by this supposed new process 'So as to convey the -carbonic acid is not. sufficient to constitute a manner of new manufacturs which .is good subject-matter for a patent. Therefore I must dismiss this. appeal.  (...truncated)