Gardiner v Hodkinson and Co [1915] HCA 74

626 HIGH COURT (1915.

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

GARDINER ; : P 5 . , . APPELLANT; PLAINTIFF, AND HODKINSON & CO. . s e . RESPONDENTS, DEFENDANTS,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

H.C. or A. Patent—Validity — Novelty—Utility—Specification— Mechanical equivalents. 1915. oy In an action for infringement of a patent for a combination the validity of Sypnry, the patent was challenged on the grounds that the alleged invention did not Dec. 2, 3. involve inventive skill, and that it was neither novel nor useful. Qriffith O.J.,

Qrifith 0.3. Held, on the evidence, that the invention did involve inventive skill and and Rich Jd. was not merely a substitution of mechanical equivalents; that it was both

novel and useful; and that the specification clearly specified the matters which rendered the invention useful.

Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Harvey J.) reversed.

AppraL from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

A suit was brought in the Supreme Court by David Gardiner against Hodkinson & Co., a firm of engineers, for infringement qf a patent for "an improved two-brick dry-pressed brick machine." The specification was as follows :—

F

20 C.L.R.) OF AUSTRALIA.

This invention is adapted to simplify and increase the capacity of two-brick dry-pressed brick machines. In this machine the standards are lengthened so as to form guides for a reciprocating cross head. The top head that presses the brick in the mould is carried by the cross head above the top shaft in the following manner :—To the cross head are secured two bow pieces and to the bottom ends of the bow pieces is secured the top head. The top shaft is provided with three cams, two of which are adapted to press down the top head, while the third cam is adapted to raise the top head clear of the mould box, in order to allow the charger to refill the moulds. But in order that the invention may be clearly understood reference will be made to the accom- panying sheet of drawings.