IN THE MATTER OF BARFF'S AND BOWER'S PATENT
Reports of Patent Design and Trade Mark Cases · 1895
year 1888, and from 1888 they have had this patent bringing about' exactly what they wanted with the greatest utility to mankind., Then, it is said, "Well, but supposing we are wrong on both those points, " that neither Sutcliffe's nor the Plaintiffs' patent of 1887 anticipated the 5 " Plaintiffs' patent of 1888, still you are wrong upon your Specification, namely, " that you have claimed in your claim something you have no business to, and " that your real claim is what you have got in Claim 2; that is, in Claim 1 you " claim only a combination of the chamber and the pan without the user of the " tipper, and it is only the' combination of the three that makes your patent 10 "any good at all."That is not right.It has been pointed out by the Master 01 the Rolls and by Lord Justice Kay, who have preceded me, that the real nature of this combination patent is that it is a combination of a chamber and a pan, in which chamber a tipper can be used which may protrude into the pan.Therefore the Plaintiffs are right also on their Specification.15 On these grounds, I am of opinion that the appeal fails.