VOL. VIII.] EXCHEQUEh 'COURT REPORTS. 69 BETWEEN :— THE- LIIgFER PRISM COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS ; 1902 LIMITED July 15. AND GEORGE MACLAIRE WEBSTER, 1 AND* THOMAS JESSE PARKES, TRADING UNDER THE NAME, STYLE DEFENDANTS. AND FIRM OF WEBSTER B ROS. & PARKES Patent for invention—Prisms for deflecting light—Anticipation--Novelty. A patent for prisms intended for use in deflecting the course. of rays of light falling obliquely or horizontally on glass.placed vertically, as in the ordinary windows of bouses and shops, is not void for anticipation by reason of prior patents for prisms for use where the light falls vertically or obliquely on glass placed horizontally, as in pavements. - Semble, that if the former patent were to be broadly construed as for a device fôr deflecting the course of light passing through glass it would fail for want of novelty. THIS was an action for infringement of Canadian letters-patent, No. 57,152, for alleged new and useful improvements inrprismatic glass.. May .2nd, 1902. The case came on for trial at Toronto. C. Robinson, K. C and Britton Osier for the plaintiffs; A. R. Oughtred for the defendants. THE JUDGE OF THE EXCHEQUER COURT now (July 15th, 1902) delivered judgment. This action is brought by the plaintiffs against the. defendants to restrain the latter from infringing the
60 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. [VOL. VIII. 1902 patents mentioned in the statement of claim, and for THE u (~F ER damages PRISM VO. v By agreement between the parties the issue is WEBSTER. limited to patent numbered 57,152 granted on the 21st aos.un,. of August, 1897, to Frank C. Soper for alleged new for Judgment. and useful improvents in prismatic ,glass ; and with . reference to that patent the only questions in contro- versy are as to whether or not the alleged invention was anticipated by the Nain and Waddell patent, numbered 1121, issued from the English Patent Office, or by the the Jacob patent, numbered 458,850, issued from the TTnited States Patent Office.. If any attempt were made to give the Soper patent a broad construction as a device for deflecting the course of light passing through glass the conclusion would, I think, be inevitable that the patent failed for want of novelty. But the prisms made under the Nain and Waddell, and under the Jacobs patents, were intended to be used where the light falls vertically or obliquely on glass placed horizontally, as in pavements ; and the prisms made under the Soper patent are intended for use in deflecting the course of rays of light falling obliquely or horizontally on glass placed vertically, as in the ordinary windows of houses and shops. The former depended principally for their effectiveness upon the principle of internal or total reflection of prisms having certain angles ; the latter upon the principle 'of refraction only. It seems to me, therefore, that it is not possible to say that either of the two patents mentioned is an anticipation of the Soper patent,' if the latter is limited, as I think it should 'be, to the particular devices described and intended for the special uses to which they are put. It is possible that if the enquiry had taken a wider range evidence would have been aVailable to show
VOL. VIII.] EXCHEQUER_ COURT. REPORTS., that this patent construed in that narrow way has been anticipated ; but that is not an issue at present ; and it is proper to confine oneself to the issues the parties have seen fit -to submit for decision. There will be judgment for the plaintiffs on the issues in -controversy..-• - Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for plaintiffs :. McCarthy, Osler, Roslin and Solicitors for defendants : Hutchinson 4. 61 1902 Ta LUXPER PRISM Co. ti. WEBSTER. Rea., for Judgment. Creehnan. Ough tred.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.