The next step is for the applicant to give notice at the office of the commissioners of lima intention to proceed with his application, which is then advertised by the commissioners ; and any person having an interest in opposing the grant of the lettera-patent will be at liberty, within a certain period, to lodge particulars in writing of their objection, and to be heard in support of them. The period for objection being expired, the specification and the objections are referred to the law officer, who, if the application seems to him fit, may cause a warrant to be made for the sealing of time letters-patent ; which warrant having been sealed by the commissioners, has next to be, under the sanction of the lord chancellor, waled with the great seal of the United Kingdom, whereby the grant to the applicant, of the exclusive right of using the invention within the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man, and (if the warrant so direct) within the colonies, for the full term of fourteen years, is completed. A patent right may, however, at the option of the patentee, be limited to a pre liminary period of three, and successive periods of four and seven years, in which case the amount of the fees is also distributed. The letters patent always contain a proviso to the effect that, if the "complete specification " already filed does not particularly describe the nature of the invention and the mode of applying it,—or, supposing no such specification have been yet then, if the applicant does not within a limited period file such a specification in the Court of Chancery, the grant in the letters-patent contained shall be void. The object of the specification thus required, is to put the public in full possession of the inventor's secret, so that any person may be in a condition to avail himself of it, when the period of exclusive privilege has expired. To prevent this object from being defeated by an evasive or careless description, the proviso is construed with great strictness by the courts of law ; and it is held to be infringed, and the letters-patent to be consequently void, whenever the specification is in any part of it materially false or defective. The principal rules on this subject are as follows :—In describing the nature of the invention, the specification must, in the first place, correspond with the title of the patent, for its office is to set forth with more particularity the subject already indicated in the patent itself ; and if one thing be claimed by the patent, and another by the specification, the grant is void. It is also an objection to the specification, if it should cover too much ; that is, include in its claim of new invention anything which in fact has been already known and practised ; and therefore if the entire article for which the patent has been taken out comprises some known process in connection with others that are new, the claim should be made in such form as to apply to the Latter only, and to disclaim the former ; or if the combination of several known things happen to be the only novelty, it is to the combination only that the claim should be pointed. As to the description of the manner of performance or production, the general rule is, that it should be such as to enable workmen or other qualified persons of ordinary skill to make the patent article at the expiration of the term, by simply following the directions given, without resorting to contrivances of their own. In addition to which we may remark, that no circumstance can be safely passed over in this description which is advantageous, whether absolutely essential or not, in the conduct of the process ; and that if several methods are stated, the specification will be defective if either of them be found to fail in effecting the promised result.
The following are a few instances of patents being lost through defective titles : In the case of King r. 3fetcalfe (2 Starkie, N.P.C., 249), the subject
of the patent was a hairbrush, in which the hairs were of unequal length : in the title it was described as a " tapering brush," which was considered as intended to mislead the public, as not being a description of the subject of the patent, and it was annulled accordingly. In Cochrane r. Smethurst (K. B., 1 Starkie, 205), the patent was for a certain lamp, but the title called it an " Improved Method of Lighting Cities, Towns, and Villages." The patent in this case was held to be void, as the specification only described a new lamp, and not an " improved method of lighting " at all ; and it was also objected, that as it was equally applicable to lighthouses, harbours, shipping, &c., the title was otherwise imperfect. If the title had been for an " Improved Lamp " or an " Improvement on Lamps," the intent would have been valid. In the case of King r. Wheeler, the patent set forth in its title a " New and Improved Mode of Drying and Preparing Malt," whereas the specification described a method of re-burning malt which had already been made, so as to produce a colouring matter for beer and other liquors. Now it is evident that if any one had intended to take out a patent for producing colouring matter, he would never have collected from this title that the patent was likely to interfere with his invention. In the case of Bloxam r. Elsee (6 Barn. & Cress., 169 and 178), the title of a patent which came in question was " A Machine for making Paper in Single Sheets, without Seam or Joining, from 1 to 12 feet and upwards in width, and from 1 to 45 feet and upwards in length." The specification, however, described a machine only capable of producing paper of one width or to a certain width. Now if an Inventor who thought of taking a patent for a machine to make paper of a greater width than 12 feet had looked at the title only of this patent, he would have supposed that such a patent already existed ; but if he had inspected the specification, he would have found that it did not bear out the title, as the machine therein described was not capable of making paper of a width greater than 12 feet. The patent then was invalid, as the title comprised more than the specification. This is the most common error that patentees fall into. Jessop's case, cited during the trial of Boulton and Watt against Bull, in 1795, by Mr. Justice Buller, is another instance. A patent was taken out for a "New Watch," whereas the specification only described a particular movement in a watch, which was the real invention, and the patent was therefore void.
Patentees sometimes render their patents invalid by claiming too much ; thus, after describing one substance or process which will answer a certain purpose, they often conclude by some such expression as, "or any other fit and proper means." The following is an instance in which a patent was set aside by such an expression. In specifying a machine for drying paper by passing it against heated rollers by means of an endless fabric, the inventor, after describing one sort of fabric, the only one in fact which he used, went on to say that any other fit and proper material might be used. Now if he used any other means- of effecting his object, such means should have been distinctly described. This alone rendered his specification incomplete ; but, besides this, it was proved that no other fabric would answer the piirpose, or rather that no other was known, and the patent was annulled accordingly.
The patentee may describe his invention just as he pleases, and he may illustrate such description by drawings or not ; but he should be careful to use words in their most common acceptation, or if some technical use should have perverted their meaning, he should make it appear distinctly that he intends them to be taken in such perverted sense.