DISPUTED PATENT CASE.

New Zealand Times, Volume LIV, Issue 9866, 24 March 1893, Page 2

DISPUTED PATENT CASE.

THE REGISTRAR’S JUDGMENT, The Registrar of Patents (Mr Haselden) has delivered judgment in the matter of the contested application by Dr W. H. Gaze, of Westport, for letters patent for an invention for leaching ores, the opposing parties being tbs Cassel Gold Extracting Company as assignees of Messrs McArthur, Forrest and Forrest, on the ground that Dr Gazs’s process was an infringement of their patent. At the hearing before the Registrar, Mr W. H. Haselden appeared for the applicant and Mr Quick for the objectors. The judgment sets out by stating that the first question to be decided is to what extent a patentee was entitled to claim, in general terms, protection for every subetance or compound containing the particular chemical used by him in hie patented process. At the date of MoAtthar and Forrest’s patent, chloride, bromide, and iodide of cyanogen, were not new discoveries in chemistry, and McArthur and Forrest’s might, therefore, fairly claim the use of cyanogen in these compounds for the purpose of obtaining gold, &0., by their process. Now Dr Gaze claimed the employment of a teaching solution of or oontaiuing these compounds, and thess he (the Registrar) mast bold to be included In McArthur and Forrest’s specification by the phrase ‘ substance or compound containing cyanogen, 1 The Registrar further holds that excepting that Dr Gaas states a way of making the eolation, his process is practically the earns as that of McArthur and Forrest. It appeared to him that Mo Arthur and Forrest bad discovered the principle of gold-saving by the use of cyanogen, and invented a mode of carrying that principle into effect. He was, therefore, forced to the conclusion that Dr Gaze's alleged invention was practically included In the letters patent which bad already been granted in New Zealand to MoArthar and Forrest, and ho mast therefore refuse Dr Gazs’s application, He was of opinion, however, that though McArthur and Forrest’s patent prevents his granting a patent to Dr Gaze, the use of chloride of cyanogen, which was said to be a stronger reagent than cyanide of potassium, might be an improvement on the proosfe actually used under MoArthar and Forrest’e patent, and ho would therefore make no order as to costs, excepting that Dr Gaze would pay tbs assessor's fees of £2 2s.