IN THE MATTER OF BARRACLOUGH'S APPLICATION FOR A PATENT

Supplement. ] June 30, 1920] THE ILLUSTRATED OFFICIAL JOURNAL (PA.TENTS). 105 [Vol. XXXVII] REPORTS OF PATENT, DESIGN, AND TRADE MABK OASES [No.6. I In the Matter of Barraclough's Application for a Patent. Before the SOLICITOR-GENERAL. October 22nd and 30th, 1919. IN THE MATTER OF BARRACLOUGH'S APPLICATION FOR A PATENT.. Opposition to the grant of a Patent on grounds (b) and (c) of Section 11 (1) 0/ the 5 Patents and Designs Act, 1907.-0laim to a Master Patent.-opponent asking for the refusal of a Patent or that a Specific Reference to the prior Patent be ordered to be inserted,' and that a 8tatementof prior knowledge be orderedto be amended.Allegation of prior user held to be established.-Patent directed to be 8eaZed without a Specific Reference.-Appeal to Law OJficer.-Appeal allowed with eost«; 10 and, Specific Reference ordered to be inserted.-The question of prior user cannot be gone into for the purpose of defeating a Olaim by an Opponent for the insertion oj a Specific Reference. In 1917, Harry Barraclough applied for a Patent No. 111,791. The invention sought to be patented related to the construction and mounting of discs that 15 are rotatably mounted in draft or knocking-off boards of cloth milling machines, and consisted of such a disc having draft apertures spaced and arranged so that certain of the apertures occupied the position of an equilateral triangle and others that of a square and one and the same disc could be used efficiently for milling either three draft or four draft; the disc might also be adapted to contact with 20 a supporting ring at intervals only and provide open spaces between the contacting parts for the passage of flock which might otherwise collect at the bearing of the dise and prevent its free rotation. The grant was opposed under Section 11 (1) (b) and (c) of the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, by Herbert Roberta on the grounds that the invention had been 25 claimed in the Complete Specification of a British Patent of prior date, viz : No. 16,252 of 1915 (Roberts), and that the nature of the invention or the manner in which it was to be performed was not sufficiently or fairly described in the Complete Specification. The Opponent contended that the Applicant's first Claim referred merely to a 30 particular design of a disc or rotary part and therefore wa~ ~~P~~.~~~j.:qgc~qbi~9t ma.tW Jor the srant 91~t; alternatively, he urged tliat the Applicant's alleged invention was a mere improvement upon that claimed in the Specification of his Patent which should be treated as a master patent for a rotary plate having a plurality of openings for the drafts of fabric and mounted in supports or bearings 35 in. the draft board when used in a milling machine. Counsel for the Opponent at the hearing asked alternatively for a specific reference. The Applicant furnished evidence that discs with apertures and rotatably mounted in draft or knocking-off boards of milling machines had been in use prior to the date of the Opponent's Patent. The Opponent objected to this 40 evidence as inadmissible, and denied the allegation of prioruser, The OhiefExaminer, acting for the Oomptro1J,er-GeneraZ, decided for the Applicant on subject-matter, and held that the evidence of prior user, and indeed of public user, was such as to convince him that the reference asked for to the Opponent'sSpecification would not alone be sufficient as a statement of the prior It 8·upp'lemef&t.] 106 THE ILLUSTRATED OFFICIAL JOURNAL (PATENTS). BEPORTS OJ' PATENT, DESIGN, AND TBADB MARK CASBS [June 30, 1920 [Vol. XXXVIT]. Inlthe!Matter LJf Barraclough'8 Application for a Patent. state of the art. As the Opponent was not prepared to accept a statement which set out the prior user as well as a reference to the Opponent's Specification, he did not think he ought to, require the reference to the Opponent's Specification. He decided to seal a Patent on the Application without the reference, and awarded costs to the Applicant. The Opponent appealed. 5 The appeal was heard by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL. Hunter Gray K.C. and Trevor Watson appeared as Counsel for the Appellant, and James Whitehead appeared as Counsel for the Respondent. Besides the cases referred to in the decision, Hopkins' Application, 27 R.P.C. 10 72 [1910], was referred to. Sir ERNEST M. POLLOCK S.-G.-This case came before me on the 22ndof October, when I had the advantage of listening to arguments presented on behalf of both sides very ably. Those arguments have been concluded to-day. I have had the advantage of hearing both Mr. Whitehead and Mr. Trevor Watson, and they have put their cases with such lucidity that I am able to deliver my judgment 15 without any further consideration. I may add that in the interval between the 22nd October and to-day, I have had an opportunity of considering the matter, and in view of 'the arguments presented to-day my mind is quite clear upon the question. The case comes before me in this way. The applicant, Mr. Harry Barraclough, 20 states in his Specification filed on the 23rd October 1917 :-" This invention "relates to the construction and mounting of discs that are rotatably mounted "in draft or knocking off boards of cloth milling machines. In apparatus of " this class it is customary to form the disc with three or four apertures which " are spaced equidistantly around the centre of the board to produce what is 2li "known as a three or a four-draft board." It is important to observe in the short passage that I have read that reference is made to what is called" eus"tomary." The Claim ,that the Applicant makes is "For use in connection "with a draft or knocking off board, a disc or rotary part having draft apertures " spaced and arranged that certain of the apertures approximately occupy the 30 "position of an equilateral triangle and others that of a square substantially " as described, for the purpose specified." Putting it in very simple language, it means this: In the use of knocking off boards of cloth milling machines, it appears to be of importance-and one can well understand the reason for i t - . that the cloth that passes through it should be so arranged that the stress which 35 is placed lipon the board should be 'equalised in order that the several forces exercised, by the cloth should pull one against the other, and form as nearly as may be an equilibrium. The present invention affords an opportunity for the cloth which passes through the knocking off boards to be arranged conformably to that end.whether you have three pieces or four pieces of cloth, without changing 40 the knocking off board. The equidistance of the cloths one from the other, and their inter-relation is' preserved by means of the system which it is claimed this invention provides, An 0PDosition '!!S lodi,ed by Mr. Herbert Robem based upon his Specification, dateCl 17th May, 19I6, on the ground that he has secured a Patent for something which is impinged upon by the Claim of the Applicant. 45 (...truncated)