a—a)

192

is the process of separating precious metal from ore containing base metal, which process consists in subjecting the powdered ore to the action of a cyanide solution containing cyanogen in proportion not exceeding eight parts of cyanogen to one thousand.parts of water." Mr. Neville summed up the case for the defendants. They might, he said, have gone on almost till doomsday about electricity, but there was one broad point: the plaintiffs claimed the use of any solution which contained cyanogen or cyanide, or any cyanogen-yielding substance. If that was so, that obviously applied to Simpson and to Eae, who both used a cyanogen, containing solution for the purpose of extracting gold from ore. There was an end of the case. Sir Webster said that, if it was suggested that the plaintiffs' patent was wide enough to include Eae and Simpson, he should apply to disclaim. Mr. Neville thought that application would be late in the day, and proceeded to attempt to dispose of the argument that the plaintiffs' was such a meritorious invention that it ought to be favourably viewed by the Court. The cross-examination indicated the defendants' case with regard to that. They said that the process, so far as it had been successful, depended not upon the easilyascertained method of dissolving the gold from the ore, but upon the finding of a workable and suitable method of getting the gold out of solution when you had once got it there. The learned counsel then referred to the evidence of the plaintiffs as showing that not one ton of gold ore was treated until the plaintiffs had arrived at a suitable method of getting the gold out of solution. With regard to the second claim, the learned counsel pointed out that that was a claim practically for every useful form of cyanide of potassium. He then dealt with the question whether the plaintiffs could have a patent for cyanide of potassium alone, and submitted, on the authority of a number of cases, that they could not. If the plaintiffs' patent was not for the use of cyanide of potassium alone, then Simpson's patent was fatal to it, because there was only a slight admixture of another chemical. All the evidence went to show that Simpson's patent would do the work of the plaintiffs' patent, and it was an absolute absurdity to say that all the world might use cyanide of potassium if they put in half an ounce of carbonate of ammonium ; but the plaintiffs alone had the use of cyanide of potassium. For anybody to read Simpson's specification and say that it did not disclose the use of cyanide of potassium as a solvent of gold seemed to him to be a strange proposition. Much the same remarks were made with regard to Eae, and the learned counsel submitted that neither of these patentees claimed the use of cyanide of potassium alone, because its solvent properties were even at that time well known. The suggestion that nobody could possibly tell that cyanide of potassium would be available for the purposes of dissolving gold in ore was met by the evidence of Professor Eobert Austen, Professor Attfield, and others, who had practically said that that might have been inferred. The fact was that anybody who wanted to> dissolve gold used cyanide of potassium as a matter of course, even Faraday treating that as something which everybody knew. That there was no secret in the fact that cyanide of potassium would dissolve finely-divided gold was proved by the reference to that fact in the " Circle of the Sciences," which was in the true sense a popular book. It was only because there was no gold in England that cyanide of potassium had not been the subject of patents here. But there was gold in America, and therefore in America the first patents were taken out to get the advantage of cyanide of potassium. What did Mr. Mac Arthur do ? He took all the known solvents of gold, amongst them" cyanide of potassium, and he experimented to see which did it best. Surely that was not invention. Mr. Mac Arthur did not find out that cyanide of potassium would dissolve the gold out of ore; he; simply took that with all the other solvents that were known. There was no doubt in the minds ofchemists at that time that cyanide of potassium would dissolve gold out of ore. The difficulty was* how to get the gold out. Then Mr. Mac Arthur discovered a method by which practically the gold could; be got out, and, if there was any merit in his invention, that was where it came in. The evidence showed that there were ores in America and other places which did not yield to the plaintiffs' method, which was useful so far as the South African ores were concerned, but was not successful in its application to Australian and other ores. The learned counsel then repeated the previous; contention with regard to the specifications, and dealt with the argument that the dilute solution had a selective action, so as to dissolve the gold or silver preferably to the baser metals. That, he said, was not proved by the evidence, which went to show that the solution did not always act on the gold first, but immediately attacked the whole, dealing in some cases with the gold with more rapidity, and in others with less. This action was an absurd attempt to keep the world from using a solution of cyanide of potassium for this purpose, and still more absurd when it was known that actually before the plaintiffs' claim to do that this very substance had been used for this very - purpose in the one case, as the plaintiffs said, with an immaterial and useless addition, and in the other case with a small admixture of a substance which did not make it operate either better or worse on the ores. Mr. Goodeve followed on the same side, and Mr. Bowick said a few words. Sir E. Webster said that the fallacy in the arguments of his learned friends was in supposing that, however well known the scientific fact might have been that gold, powdered or crushed, would be dissolved in cyanide of potassum, that would invalidate a claim for a new process of applying that scientific or chemical principle or knowledge. He was going to contend that here there was a new result and a new process, and that both the new result and the new process required expert ment, research, and invention. He was going to apply the test suggested by Lord Westbury, ask the Court fearlessly to come to the. conclusion that the anticipations in this case were not. sufficient to invalidate this patent. Having dealt at some length with the law on the subject, and cited a number of authorities, the learned counsel said that the existence of the chemical principle by which the success of the invention had been carried out was not in any way an objection to the patent. He respectfully submitted that the law to-day was, and had been for thirty years, that the useful application of a known laboratory fact, or the useful application of a known chemical fact, for the first, time to a commercial purpose successfully, was sufficient subject*matter for a patent,