THE NEW ZEALAND CYANIDE PROCESS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1285, 15 October 1896, Page 29

THE NEW ZEALAND CYANIDE PROCESS.

Tlio Registrar of Patents (Sir Waldograve) on Tuesday morning decided that the Cassel Company’s application to amend the specification must bo refused. In the course of his judgment he said : —The original patentees of this cyanide process took out a patent which it is admitted embraced all strong! ns of solution. But all the scientific witnesses were unanimous in the opinion that weak solutions exercise a more valuable selective action on gold in its ores than do the strong solutions, and the words of the proposed amendment recognised the same fact. The essence of the process, therefore, or at all events the constituent which renders it practically useful, lies in the use of weak solutions. If the patentees were aware of that when they applied for their patent, they were bound to disclose it in their specification ; if they did not know it it is after-acquired knowledge, and the true invention resides in the disclaimer, and that is not permissible. It was suggested at the hearing that the use of the word “ cj’anogen ” in the specification indicated that dilute solutions were those claimed or used. I understood the argument to amount to this —that because water will only absorb a limited quantity of cyanogen gas, the equivalent of such a solution in a cyanide compound must necessarily be a dilute solution. This argument is, 1 am afraid, not tenable. It is not by inference that an inventor is to comply with the conditions of his grant. He must particularly describe his invention with a reasonable degree of exactitude and precision, and I can find no authority in patent law for saying that an inventor,

when challenged, may say that he intended the pith of his invention to be discovered by the skilful ingenuity of a trained mind. It was also pointed out that an amendment to a like effect to that now proposed had been allowed in England. Under ordinary circumstances I should have no hesitation in following the decision of the Controller-General, but it is evident from the report of his decision that he allowed the amendment because dilute solutions having a selective action were described in the English specification. This, however, is not the case in the New Zealand specification. There is only one ether point to which I need refer. Counsel for the applicant company contended that what is termed a “ benevolent ” or “ liberal ” interpretation should be placed on this specification. Now, when the term “ benevolent interpretation ” is used, it means only that the specification is to be construed fairly; that is to say, it is not to be strained either against the inventor or against the public. In considering this case, I have endeavoured to kee£ that . rule in mind, and I have arrived at the conclusion that the application for amendment should not be granted. The Cassel Company has notified its intention to appeal to the Supreme Court against this decision. In these proceedings the Cassel Company was represented by Sir Robert Stout, Mr Quick and Dr Findlay. The objectors to the amendment were the Honourable the Attorney General, and Mr George Harper, of Auckland, the former being represented by Mr Stafford and Mr Hall, and the latter by Mr Button, M.11.R.

The question of costs stood over, pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court granting leave to amend, until after the decision of the. Supreme Court on the appeal.