193

G.—3

and that the patent would not be invalidated by any previous publication, unless that previous publication told people how to do it in such a way that from it alone a workman or a scientific man anxious to understand it would be led to perform that particular process which was the subject of the invention. The general principle to be applied was, first, to see whether you required experiment, research, or invention to apply the stock of general knowledge to a particular process ; and, secondly, whether the anticipations set up enabled persons to arrive at that result by their own force and without the assistance of the knowledge the patentee had added. Mr, Justice Eomer heard counsel's arguments in this case at further length on Monday, the 46h August, when Sir Eichard Webster continued his reply on the whole case for the plaintiffs. He said he proposed to examine the existing state of knowledge from the points of view of what the general knowledge showed and what specific exposition showed. His respectful submission was that, so far from these expositions, or any of them, having told persons that they could extract gold from ore, or gold from anything, by cyanide of potassium, they would have been led away from it. One broad observation that might be made was that nobody could predict, simply because a chemical was a solvent, that it would be useful. The most well-known solvent of gold was aqua regia, and it was admitted by everybody that that was absolutely useless for the purpose of dissolving gold out of ores. With regard to the knowledge which the defendants' witnesses said was disclosed, in chemical literature, the learned counsel said that not a living being of all these chemists had ever given the Court a practical effect of all this. It was common ground that there was no prior user in this case. Mr. Justice Eomer : In England. Sir E. Webster said that he would show that there was evidence of no user of Simpson or Eae anywhere in a sense that would invalidate the patent. The learned counsel then drew attention to the passages in the evidence with a view of supporting his proposition, and went on to say that he did not know of any case where it could less be said that a patentee was availing himself of previously-known scientific facts to bolster up a claim which, when investigated, could not be supported. The knowledge about cyanide of potassium referred to by the defendants did not. lead Professor Eobert Austen or Mr. Mac Arthur to the knowledge that cyanide of potassium was a solvent of gold in its ore. If this was merely a question of solvency, why had not aqua regia been taken, that being known to be infinitely more a solvent than cyanide of potassium ? It had not been challenged that no chemist could diagnose, from the mere fact that cyanide of potassium would have a solvent effect upon gold in a given condition, that it would act on the gold in ores. Having referred to the evidence on this point, learned counsel came to what he termed the two most important points—namely, the alleged anticipations of Bae and Simpson. The defendants, he said, came into Court to win this case upon Eae's specification ; they came to prove that they were electrically depositing the gold out of the ordinary solution, and not using the chemical action. He did not hesitate to say that his Lordship had seldom heard so complete an abandonment of the case the defendants came into Court to prove. How did the matter stand? The plaintiffs described the Pielsticker process, and called evidence to prove that when the electric current was passing, as the defendants used it, it had no effect on the dissolving action of the solvent as distinguished from the depositing action. His Lordship then said that the state of the evidence was so unsatisfactory that further experiments ought to be tried. The plaintiffs had called Lord Kelvin, who might have been right or wrong; but he prescribed his own apparatus, and the experiment carried out by him did prove that there was less gold when the current was passing than when it was not. The defendants took the apparatus away, and they gave' evidence that Lord Kelvin's experiments were untrustworthy, because the solution could pass through the second carbon division. Thereupon, the plaintiffs in open Court offered that these experiments should be renewed. What happened? The defendants abandoned the electricity distinction ; they were obliged to admit that they could not rely upon any distinction due to the fact that they had superadded electricity to what Mr. McArthur had patented. With regard to Eae, he asked the Court to remember that the evidence was that Bae had abandoned the cyanide of potassium, and worked by electricity alone. What was necessary in order that Bae could be used as an anticipation of the plaintiffs' patent? He said, without hesitation, that sufficient directions must be found to tell people to abandon.the . electricity, and to rely upon the dissolving action of the cyanide of potassium. Mr. Justice Eomer said that what would be said against the plaintiffs was this : That the general knowledge was that cyanide of potassium w r ould dissolve gold under certain conditions ; and though there might possibly be a doubt whether you could dissolve gold in crushed ore, here w v as Eae saying, " You certainly can, and the use of the electric current will facilitate it." Sir B. Webster : I say the electricity is to make the solution. Mr. Justice Bonier did not take that view, having regard to the language of the specifiation, ahd said that the defendants said that if any person had any doubt whether cyanide of potassium would dissolve gold in the crushed ore, after reading Bae he could not have had a doubt about it. Sir E. Webster said that was the strongest thing in his favour. Eae had told people that they could have a perfect solution by the aid of electricity ; he had never told people that they could get a perfect solution by the action of the chemical. What Eae said was that if you desired to get the maximum solution of gold you must have an electric current. He (Sir E. Webster) denied that the defendants were entitled to eke that out by saying that it was previously known that cyanide of potassium had a solvent action on gold in ore. Eae told people that cyanide of potassium had a certain solvent action on gold in ore ; but that, if it was desired to make it a practical solution, you' must have electricity to aid it. He submitted that Eae could not be read as if the electricity were not there. He knew of no case in which, in order to invalidate a parent, the defendant had been allowed to rely upon that which was contrary to the directions of the alleged anticipating patent. Mr. Justice Bomer said that this was not put against the plaintiff as anticipation directly,, but on the question of anticipation generally. It was said by the defendants that if cyanide-of potas--