410 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS, [VOL. X. BETWEEN 1906 T H E COPELAND—CHATTERSON t May 14. COMPAN Y, LIMITED, f PLAINTixFS AND JEAN PAQUETTE (ALso TRADINCTI UNDER THE NAME MONTIEAL PLUMBERS' SUPPLIES) AND VICTOR G U ERTIN DEFENDANTS. AND HENRY GUERTIN (TRADING} UNDER TILE NAME GUERTIN PRINTINGI I CO.) J Patent for inrention — Infringern.nt — Manifold sheets—Conadiau patent .\o. 66843—Di8claimer after action—Validity of remaining claims. The first claim in the specification in patent sued on was disclaimed after action brought. It was as follows :—" I. A manifold sheet having au original leaf and a duplicate leaf connected at a score line and folded together, the duplicate leaf having an apertured binding margin which makes it of greater actual area than the original leaf whereby when detached the duplicate leaf may be filled by means of its apertured margin." The second claim, the validity of which was in issue, was in these terms :—" 2. A manifold sheet having an origi• nal leaf and a duplicate leaf connected at a score line and folded together, the duplicate leaf having an apertured binding margin which makes it of greater actual area than the original leaf, the duplicate leaf having its binding margin folded over, whereby when the duplicate leaf is detached its margin may unfolded for filing." Held, that there was no difference in fact between the sheet described in the first claim, which was disclaimed, and that described in the second claim. 2. In view of the disclaimer of the first claim above mentioned, there is no novelty or invention in placing the score line in one particular place in the plane of the original leaf so that one half of the binding margin of the duplicate leaf will, before the leaves are separated from each other, lie in such plane. HIS was an action for the infringement of a patent for invention. The facts of the case are stated in the reasons for judgment.
VOL. X.] EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. 411 September 14th and 15th, 1905. . 1906 The case was tried at Montreal. TE: COPELA\ 1). October 19th, 1905. CnATTEusoN CO. V. The case was argued at Montreal. 1~dQUk:TTE. W. Cassels, K. C., and W. E. Raney, for the plaintiffs, Argument of Counsel. contended that the invention, looked at as a whole, wag — an arrangement of leaves on a sheet of paper so folded as to accomplish with facility and economy the purpose of furnishing several invoices, the duplicates of which will all appear on one charge sheet of paper to be kept for filing purposes. The transverse score lines enable this to be done with facility and despatch and the greatest possible economy of labour. Such a device or invention is patentable, and its utility is demonstrated in the fact that it has gone into very general commercial use in this country. They cited Hoe y. Cottrell (1) ; Magowan y. 1Tew York B. & P. Co. (2) ; Potts y. Creager (3) ; Union Sugar Refinery v. Mathieson (4). P. B. Mignault, K: C. (with whom was J. 1.. Perron, K.C.) for the defendants, contended that there was no subject-matter. Utility is no test of patentability. If I fold a sheet of paper in two or three folds and then put a score line, or line of perforations, at a short distance from the line of fold so that the sheet can be detached, surely there is no invention in that. The whole thing is so perfectly obvious that it is not a matter of new invention in the sense of the Statute of Monopolies. Then what is the effect of the disclaimer herein made pending the action. Clearly that no damages can be claimed for anything done prior to the filing of the disclaimer. (Frost on Patents (5) ; Walker on Patents (6) ; Office Specialty Co. v. Globe Company (7). (1) 1 Fed. R. 597. • (4) 3 Cliff 639. (2) 141 U. S.-R. 332. (5) 2nd ed. pp. 271 et seq. (3) 155 U. S. R. 597. (6) 4th ed. pp. 186, et seq. (7) 65 Fed. Rep. 599.
4,12 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. f VOL. X. 1906 Mr. Cassels replied. In Smith v. Goldie (1), there 'CITE was a disclaimer during the pending of the suit, and COPEI AND- CHATTERSOK damages were given. Co. v, PAQUETTE. THE JUDGE OF THE EXCHEQUER COURT now (May 14th, Juâg g o m n e s n r r . o e 190 6) delivered judgment. This action was originally brought to obtain relief for an alleged infringement of letters patent numbered 66,843 for an improvement in manifold sheets issued on the 31st day of March, 1900, to Robert James Copeland, and subsequently assigned to the plaintiff company ; and also for an alleged infringement Df a certain industrial design mentioned in the statement of claim filed in this case. The specification attached to the letters patent concludes with sixteen claims, and it was alleged that all these claims had been infringed. The statement of claim was filed in this court on the 3rd day of November, 1904. On the 4th day of January, 1905, the defendants filed their statement in defence, by which on the grounds stated therein they denied the validity of the patent and of the industrial design mentioned. Thereupon on the 23rd day of February, 1905, the plaintiff company, with the concurrence of Robert James Copeland, the inventor, and on the ground that through mistake, accident or inadvertence, and' without any wilful intent to defraud or mislead the public, he had made his specification too broad, filed in the office of the Minister of Agriculture, a disclaimer of the first claim set up in such specification. Then on the 14th day of April following the statement of claim was amended by striking out the allegations on which relief was asked for the infringement of the industrial design mentioned; and of the first, third, fifth, seventh, ninth, tenth, eleventh and thirteenth claims of the specification. An amended statement of defence has been filed, by which the defendants, among other (4) 9 S. C. R. 46.
VOL. X.] EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. 413 defences, set up that the alleged invention was not new 1906 and that it was not, the proper. subject matter of letters THE COPELAND- p s tent. CHATTERSO N The following extract from the specification gives in v°' the inventor's own terms" a general description of the PAQITETTE. invention that he claims to have made :— Reasons for Jud zment. " This invention relates to manifold sheets and more particulary to such as are designed for use in rendering accounts or bills. It seeks to provide such sheets in convenient and compact size and form, so that they may be used in a typewriter of ordinary size without unduly diminishing the size of the bill heads ; also to provide binding margins in duplicate .or triplicate leaves of manifold sheets, such binding margins preferably having apertures whereby they may be secured in place of a loose leaf binder when detached from the original leaf or bill head, such margin being of sufficient width to prevent any of the matter written on the duplicate leaf from being covered up in the binder. " In the sheets embodying the invention the original and duplicate leaves are connected together along a line of separation at which the leaves are intended to be detached. This line of separation will be herein termed a score line. The original and duplicate leaves are folded one upon another so that when a carbon sheet is slipped in between the two, matter written on the original leaf will be duplicated on the duplicate leaf. In order that the manifold sheet may be sufficiently narrow to pass through typewriters of ordinary width and at the same time wide enough not to require the. original leaf to be narrower than the bill heads in general use, the binding margin is generally folded along a line running mediately through it. By this arrangement the sheet is gotten into the most convenient and compact size and form. When the sheet has been filled out and the original leaf detached from the duplicate leaf, the latter is
414 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. (VOL. X 1906 filed in the binder. For this purpose the binding margin THE of the duplicate leaf is provided with apertures so that it COP ELAND- CxATTER50N may be filed on a loose leaf binder having posts to v. v. engage the apertures. In some cases the manifold sheet PAQUETTF.. has two duplicates, each duplicate having a binding Reasons for Judgment, marginprovided with ap p e rtures and in some cases the third leaf may be used as an original leaf or bill head whose matter will be duplicated on the back of the middle or duplicate leaf. In this last case the binding margin will be omitted from the third leaf. In all cases the binding margin of the duplicate or duplicates is so disposed as not to cover any of the writing space of such duplicate or duplicates." . Then follow references to the drawings in which by twenty figures the inventor shows various forms of sheets that he says are covered by his invention. The first claim in the specification which, as has been seen, has been disclaimed as being too broad, was made in these terms :— " 1. A manifold sheet having an original leaf and a duplicate leaf connected at a score line and folded together, the duplicate leaf having an apertured binding margin which makes it of greater actual area than the original leaf whereby when detached the duplicate leaf may be filed by means of its apertured margin." The second claim, the validity of which is in issue in this ease, is made in these terms :-- " 2. A manifold sheet having an original leaf and a duplicate leaf connected at a score line and folded together, the duplicate leaf having an apertured binding margin which makes it of greater actual area than the original leaf, the duplicate leaf having its binding margin folded over, whereby when the duplicate leaf is detached its margin may be unfolded for filing." Now the first question to be determined is whether there is in fact any difference between the sheet described
VOL. X.] EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. 415 in the first claim, which it is admitted cannot be sup- 1906 ported, and the sheet described in the second claim. In THE CorELAN ti- the latter the duplicate leaf is said to bave "its binding CHATTERsoi margin folded over," and there is that verbal difference. v°' But that is a matter of words and not of substance; for PAQU1TTE. it is notp ossible>it seems to me, to make a sheet in Reasgo m n Jud s e n fo t. r accordance with the first claim without folding over the binding margin of the duplicate leaf. It will be seen by • reference thereto that what is called the original leaf of the sheet is connected with what is called the duplicate leaf, by a score line; that the two leaves are folded together; and that the duplicate leaf with its apertured binding margin has a greater actual area than the original leaf has. Now it is obvious that the score line that connects the two leaves of the sheet and permits them to be separated from each other must be placed either in the line on which the sheet is folded or on one side or the other of that line. If it is placed on the line of fold the two leaves will be equal in area, and if it iP placed on that side of the line of fold that adjoins the duplicate leaf, the latter will, when the leaves are separated, be smaller than the original leaf. In order that the duplicate leaf with its margin may larger in • area than the original leaf it is necessary to place the score line on that side of the line of fold that adjoins the original leaf. That is, a portion of the margin of the duplicate leaf must be folded over. That follows from the language used in the first claim. It is expressly mentioned in. the second claim. But in substance there is in this respect . no differ- • ence between the two claims. Neither is there any difference of language with which the two claims conclude. In the first claim it is stated that when the original leaf is detached the duplicate leaf may be filed by means of its apertured margin ; while in the second claim it is stated that when the duplicate leaf is detached
416 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. (VOL. X. 1906 the margin may be unfolded for filing. But in each THE case equally, when the two leaves are detached the one COPELAND- CHATTERSON from the other "the margin of the duplicate leaf may be Co. V. " unfolded for filing," and it "may also be filed by PAQUETTE. << means of the apertured margin." And it being Reasons for Judgment. admitted that the first claim cannot be sup P p p orted the second claim fails. The fourth claim, the validity of which is also in issue, is made in the following terms :-- " 4. A manifold sheet having an original leaf, and a " duplicate leaf connected together at a score line, and " folded together, the duplicate leaf having a binding " margin on the side next the original leaf, which makes " it of greater actual area than the original leaf, the line of fold for the sheet running medially across the margin " of the duplicate leaf, whereby when detached said " margin of the duplicate leaf may be unfolded for " filing." Now as to this claim, it will in the first place be seen that the binding margin is not described as it is in the first and second claims as " an apertured binding margin. " But nothing turns upon either the omission or inclusion of the word "apertured." It is no new thing to have apertures in sheets or leaves to enable them to be placed with ease and facility on files or in binders; and in the present case it makes no difference in the validity of the claim whether the binding margin is described as " aper-tured" or not. Then in the second place it will be seen that the expression " the duplicate leaf having a binding " margin on the side next the original 'leaf,' " is not an accurate or apt description of what is obviously intended, unless we are to distinguish between a margin and a binding margin ; and I do not understand that any such distinction is to be made. The greater the number of leaves to be bound together the larger the margin required ; but the whole margin may with propriety be re-
VOL. X.1 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. 417 garded as something needed for the purpose of binding 19 the leaves together. That is, the margin as a whole is a TRE C °rELANvN- binding margin. But if, as stated in the fourth claim, C HATT ERSO " the line of fold for the sheet runs medially across .the vo. margin of the duplicate leaf," then one half of the mar- PAQUETTE. gin must be on that side of the line of fold, that is, next Reasons fbr Judgment. to the duplicate leaf, as distinguished from its margin, and the other half of such margin must be on the side next to the original leaf. That is, a part of the binding margin only, and not the whole of it, is on the side of the line of fold which is next to the original leaf. But that • was equally the case with respect to the sheets described in the first or second claims, the only difference being that in the fourth claim the part of the margin of the duplicate leaf that is on the side of the line of fold next to the original leaf constitutes exactly one half of such margin. Otherwise there is no substantial difference. If the fourth claim is to be supported, it is on the ground alone that "the line of fold for the sheet" is described as " running medially across the margin of the duplicate leaf." That question will be discussed later. In the meantime it will, I think, be convenient to go through the other claims of the specification in question in this action, and see if there is in the sheets described any other element or fea-. ture to support the plaintiff's patent. The sixth claim is made in these terms :--- " 6. A manifold sheet having an original leaf and a "duplicate leaf connected together at a score line and " folded together, the duplicate leaf having an apertured "binding margin, which makes it of greater actual area " than the original Ieaf, the line of fold for the sheet "running medially across the margin of the duplicate leaf " and so that part of said binding margin lies in the plane cc of the original leaf and part in the plane of the duplicate " leaf, whereby when detached said margin of the duplicate leaf may be unfolded for filing." 27
418 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. [VOL. X. 1906 In this claim we have in express terms what of neces- THE sity happens in the case of the sheet described in the COP ELAN D- C HATTERsoN fourth claim, that is, unless, as before mentioned, some Co. V. distinction is to be drawn between a "margin" and a PAQIIETTE." bindin g margin." But if not, then part of the binding Tu rn:L T marg g i n mentioned in the fourth claim must of necessity lie "in the plane of the original leaf and part in the plane of the duplicate leaf." So that the only difference in this respect between the fourth claim and the sixth is one of words only and not one of substance. In the sixth claim the binding margin is described as being " apertured," but, as has been seen, that is not material. In the result the sixth claim, like the fourth, is to be supported, if at all, because the " line of fold for the sheet" is described as `( running medially across the margin of the duplicate " leaf." The same is true also of the eighth claim, which differs from the fourth claim in this only, that the binding margin is described as being "apertured" and it is stated that a part of the binding margin lies in the plane of the original leaf and part in the plane of the duplicate leaf. but as that is true also of the sheet described in the fourth claim, although not so stated in express terms, there is no material difference between the fourth claim and the eighth. The twelfth claim is the same as the first claim, with the addition of the following words : " the manifold sheet " having also a third leaf folded under the other two " leaves and which may be used as a triplicate leaf, or as " an original leaf whose matter may be duplicated on the under side of the duplicate leaf." That is, by making a second fold in the sheet and in that way obtaining a third leaf, one may by the use of carbon leaves, get two invoices and one record or copy to be kept or bound ; or, one invoice and two records or copies to be kept or bound, or he may get two different invoices with copies thereof on the opposite sides of the duplicate leaf. But there is
VOL. X.] EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. nothing really new or patentable in the matter of this third leaf. All that is done is accomplished by a well known and understood use of carbon leaves. And surelyCH no one can hope to get a patent for his sheet because he folds it twice instead of once. In my view the twelfth claim is no better than the first which has been abandoned. The fourteenth claim is the same as the first claim, with the addition of these words : "one of the leaves being " divided by a transverse score line." But dividing leaves by score lines was not a new thing, nor one that involved any invention. Admitting, as it must be admitted, that it is open to anyone to make and use the sheets described in the first claim of the specification, it is perfectly clear that it is also open to him to divide the leaves composing such sheets, or either of them, by as many or as few "transverse score lines" as he sees fit to use. I see no grounds on which the fourteenth claim can be supported. The fifteenth clAm is the same as the fourth, with the addition, as in the last claim mentioned, of the words "one " of the leaves being divided by a transverse score line." But, as we have seen, that feature affords no additional support to the claim. Like the fourth claim, it must stand or fall according as to whether that part of the claim in which "the line of fold for the sheet" is described as "running medially across the margin of the duplicate " leaf" is held to be new and to involve invention or not. The sixteenth claim is the same as the first claim, with the addition of a third leaf folded under and with one or more of the leaves divided by transverse score lines. As neither of these features or additions are new or involve invention, or afford subject matter for a patent, this claim is, in my opinion, no better than the first claim and cannot be supported. That leaves the following question to be considered and answered : Are the fourth, sixth, eighth and fifteenth claims good because " the line of fold for the sheet " is. 273,2 419 19e6 THE c , A {°;, NA- TTER90N c v o . . PAQUETTE. Bona ~ Ju dg men t.
420 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. [VOL. X. 1906 described as " running medially across the margin of the THE " duplicate leaf?" For unless they can be upheld on COPELAND- CH .TTFztsox that ground, I do not see any other upon which they Co. may be supported. We have seen that in making a PAQUETTE. manifold sheet in accordance with the abandoned first c claim of the patent so that the duplicate leaf with its binding margin may be of a greater actual area than the original leaf, the score line by which the leaves are connected and which enables them to be detached from each other, must be placed on that side of the line of fold which adjoins or is next to the original leaf. To use other words found in the claims to express the same thing, the score line must lie in the plane of the original leaf, if . the duplicate leaf with its apertured binding margin is to be greater in area than the original leaf. If the score line lies in the plane of the duplicate leaf the original leaf will be the larger in area. For both leaves form part of one sheet, and there is nothing to separate or distinguish them excepting the score line. And if, as has been stated, the sheet is so folded as to form in the first instance two leaves of equal size, and the score line is placed in the line of fold the two leaves will of course be equal in area. Therefore the first claim really differ3 in this respect from the others now in question in this : that according to the first claim the score line that divides the two leaves may be made at any place in the plane of the original leaf; and being so placed the half of the folded sheet from which it is taken will contribute more or less, according to the position of the score line, to the binding margin of the duplicate leaf. While according to the fourth, sixth, eighth and fifteenth claims the score line must be so placed in the plane of the original leaf that th,; half of the folded sheet from which it is taken will contribute to the duplicate leaf just one half of the binding margin of the latter leaf. And that, it will be seen, is to use the sheet to the greatest advantage. For
VOL X.] EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. 421 taking a sheet of a given size you will in that way make. ti 6 the most of the sheet and get your leaves and the bind- THE COPELAND- ing margin of the duplicate leaf _ as wide as it is possible CEjATTEBSON to maké them with a sheet of that size. Or to put the Co. same thing in another way, if one wishes to use leaves PAQUE.TTE. and a binding margin of given widths he can in that way Reasons Judgment. get them with a sheet of the least possible width. One need only take a sheet of paper and fold it for himself to see that the fact is as stated. You make the most of your sheet by placing the score line that divides the original leaf from the duplicate leaf immediately over the imaginary line that divides the latter from its binding margin and when you do that "the line of fold" of the sheet runs "medially across the margin of the duplicate leaf." Of course the gain is very little and the difference trifling where the line of fold of the sheet divides the binding margin in such a way that the two parts thereof are nearly, though not quite, equal in width. And that of course is open to anyone under the abandoned first claim of the specification. Let me by way of illustration attempt to put the question in another way. In all the claims now under consideration "the line of fold for the sheet" is described, as has been seen, as "running medially across the margin of the duplicate leaf." That is what happens when the score line is put in one particular place in the plane of the original leaf. It does not happen when such score line is placed in any other position in such plane. And after all it is a question of where the score line is put and not primarily a question of how or where the sheet is folded. As I understand it the sheet is in such a case always folded so that if it were divided at the line of fold one would have two leaves of equal size. And that is the natural and ordinary way of folding the sheet to obtain . two leaves, whether one or both of such leaves are to have margins or binding margins or not. But if, as in the present case, the object is to get two leaves, one for
422 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. [VOL. X. 2906 an original and the other for a duplicate, the latter being TILE of the larger area so that it will have a binding margin, CoPELAND- CnATrERso. while the other leaf has no such margin, the score line co. 2'. that separates the two leaves must be placed somewhere PAQUETTE. in the plane of what is called the original leaf. That lteacons for Judgment. position of the question is rep resented by the first claim made in the specification ; and that claim being abandoned as being too broad, it is open to anyone to make and use manifold sheets made in that way. But having got that far is the claim good, is there any novelty or invention in placing the score line in one particular place in the plane of the original leaf, as distinguished from placing it in any other of the number of positions in which it may be placed in such plane? Is there novelty or invention when the score line is so placed in that claim that one half of the binding margin of the duplicate leaf will, before the leaves are separated from each other, lie in such plane ? At first I was inclined to think that there was in this feature of the alleged invention some novelty and sufficient invention to support the claims now under discussion. Mr. Mignault contended that there was not, and he supported his argument by showing that the natural and ordinary way of folding the sheet is to fold it in the way mentioned ; and that having done that it is clear to anyone of ordinary intelligence that if he wishes to have a binding margin for one only of the two leaves made by folding the sheet he will use his sheet with the greatest economy and advantage by so placing the score line that one half of such margin will be obtained from each leaf of the folded sheet. And that when explained and illustrated by folding a sheet of paper and placing score lines in the plane of what in the specification is called the original leaf does appear simple and obvious. But in such cases as this one has to guard against assuming that to be obvious which appears to be so when explained, but which without explanation or instruction may not be
VOL. X.] EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. 42 3 obvious. On further consideration I have however come 1906 to the conclusion that Mr. Mignault is right. It appears THE to me that there is nothin g a bstruse or obscure CorELnxD CxATTEHSON nothing that involves discovery or invention in seeing that if a binding margin is needed for one of the two PAQUETTE. leaves obtained by folding a sheet of paper so that one Re asons for half of the sheet lies in one plane and the other half lies in another plane the most economical use that may be made of the sheet is to so place the score line that and half of such binding margin is obtained from each half of the folded sheet. It is said however that the plaintiffs have established a large and profitable business in the manufacture and sale of manifold leaves such as are described in the specification of their patent, and the success of their enterprise is invoked in support of the claims made therein. I agree that that is something to which all due consideration must in cases of this kind be given. But such considerations are not conclusive, as every one knows. And in the present case there is no reason to think that the plaintiffs' success in the sale of their manifold sheets depends in any way on the narrow question that has been discussed of the difference that is to be found between the first claim and these now in question here ; or that such success would have been any less had such sheets been manufactured in accordance with the first claim that has been abandoned, and with the second, twelfth, fourteenth and sixteenth claims which cannot, . it seems to me, be supported. And the same observation is to be made with respect to the advantages and utility claimed for the alleged invention. There is nothing that has in that respect been urged in support of the fourth, sixth, eighth and fifteenth claims that may not with equal force, or almost equal force, be urged in favour of the first, second, twelfth, fourteenth and sixteenth claims. It is said that the patentee conceived the notion that it
424 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. [VOL X. 1906 would be possible to effect a great economy in time, THE labour and material by reducing into one operation what . CUYhLAND- CHATTERSON had theretofore been two or several operations, namely, C V O . . the making of an invoice, and the making of a day book PAQUETTE. or journal entry of the transaction represented by the Reasons for .judgment. invoice. That could be accomp P lished > , it is stated, by means of a carbon process, coupled with a typewriter on the one band and on the other hand by means of binders. And they devised sheets which were intended it is said to accomplish the purpose of combining these two operations into one operation. But none of these things were new, and all that was said in this behalf is as true of the manifold sheets described in the first claim as it is of the sheets described in the claims now under consideration. And the plaintiff company and the patentee concur in the admission that the sheets described in the first claim are not the proper subject-matter of a patent, but are open and free to the public generally. There is nothing new in making an invoice by means of a typewriter, or in making by the use of carbon leaves one or more duplicates of the invoice to be retained or to be bound up with other duplicates, if one wished to do that. Neither is there anything new or patentable in having margins for the purpose of binding such duplicate leaves. Such margins are necessary where the leaves are to be bound. Stated broadly, the claims put forward on behalf of the plaintiff company cannot, it is clear, be sustained and the company was, it seems to me, well advised in disclaiming the first claim of the specification. Then as to the feature that distinguishes that claim from the fourth, sixth, eighth and fifteenth claims, I have given my reasons for thinking that it does not afford a sufficient ground for supporting the latter claims.
VOL. X.] EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. 425 The action will be dismissed with costs to the defend-1906 ants. THE Judgment accordingly.*CH C A oP T Er, A rnN- rERso Solicitors for plaintiffs : Mills, Raney, Anderson & Hales. Co. U: Solicitors for defendants : Archer, Perron k Taschereau. PAQuETTE. *June 11th, 1906. In discussing that claim and coin- Reasons for Judgment. An application on behalf of the paring it with other claims macle I plaintiffs to vary the above judge- had in mind a sheet folded from left ment was now made, the grounds of to right to make an original leaf such application appearing in the and a duplicate leaf, the score line reasons for judgment thereon. being so placed in the plane of the W. E. Raney, in support of the original leaf that the duplicate leaf motion; with its binding margin would •be J. L. Perron, K.U., contra. of greater area than the original November 12th, 1906. leaf, and it was stated in the reasons Judgment on the motion was now for judgment that " in order that given by the JUDGE OF THE Ex- " the duplicate leaf with its margin CHEQUER COURT :— " may be larger in area than the This case comes before the court " original leaf it is necessary_ to at the present time on a motion to " place the score line on that side of vary the judgment given on the " the line of fold that adjoins the 14th day of May, 1906, and to ex- " original leaf." That is a mistake. tend the time for appealing there- The proposition is true only where from to the Supreme Court of the sheet out of which the two Canada. The latter part of the leaves, the original leaf and the motion is granted, and the plaintiffs duplicate leaf, are made, is folded given thirty days in which to take from right to left. If. the sheet be the appeal mentioned. folded from left to right, the leaves The ground on which the court is being• unequal, and the score line asked to vary Its judgment is that placed in the line of fold, the saine the reasons given show that it had result may be obtained. fallen into an error as to the scope I am very glad to have had an op- of the first claim made in the speci- portnnity of making this correction, fication attached to the letters and I have considered the matter patent in question in this case. very carefully to see if by reason This claim, which the plaintiffs thereof the judgmentrende ;ed should had disclaimed as being too broad, be varied, or any material alteration was made in these ternis :— made in the form of the argument " 1. A manifold sheet having an by which it was supported. For " original leaf and a duplicate leaf obviously the reasons given might " connected at a score line and be insufficient and the judgment be " folded together, the duplicate right. As to the general form of the " leaf having an.apertured binding argument I do not see that it makes " margin which makes it of greater any material difference whether the " actual area than the original leaf second and other like claims are in " whereby when detached the dupli- substance the same as the first claim " cate leaf may be filed by means of in one only or in both of the forms " its apertnreci margin." . in which the manifold leaf may ac.
426 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. [ VOL. X. 1906 cording to the latter claim be dealt larger than the other, or that one of with. If the first claim is open and them may have a binding margin. DIE free to the public, and if in one form It is, after all is said and done, a COPE? AND in which the sheet may be folded question of where to put the score CHATTERSON Co. and the leaves made in accordance line in a sheet that has been folded n. with that claim the sane result is to make two leaves. It does not ap- PAQUETTE. obtained as that claimed in the pear to nie that there is any inven- second and other like claims, then it tion in placing that score line in the Reasons for Judgment. seems to me that the latter cannot plane of what is called the original be supported. leaf, the sheet being folded from left But apart altogether from the to right ; and for the reasons that form of the argument and from any were given in delivering the judg-comparison of the first claim with ment of the 14th day of May, 1906, the second claim and other claims I am of opinion that the patent can-embodying the like feature, it not be supported because according seems to me that there is nothing to certain claims the score line is so at all new in folding a sheet placed in the plane of the original of paper to make two or more leaf that half the binding margin is leaves. There is nothing new in fold- taken therefrom, as happens where ing it either from left to right or the score line is so placed in refer-from right to left. There is noth- ence to the line of fold that the lat-ing new in having score lines to sep- ter runs " medially across the mar-arate the leaves from each other. "gin of the duplicate leaf." There is nothing new in placing that The motion to vary the judgment score line so that one leaf may be is dismissed. REPORTER'S NOTE : On appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment of May 14th, 1906, the saine was affirmed, and the appeal dismissed with costs (April 2nd, 1907).
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.