446 
BISULPHITE OE LIME PREVENTING DECOMPOSITION. 
to be used in his process, on the contrary he informs the public that each and every one 
of the alkaline and earthy sulphites may be employed. We did not mean to say, nor 
did we, in fact, say, that the words 4 Sulphite of Lime ’ never occurred throughout the 
specification. Sulphite of lime and sulphite of alumina dissolved in sulphurous acid are 
mentioned, but only as examples of the use of any of the alkaline or earthy sulphites. 
As to whether the Court would hold that sulphite of lime dissolved in sulphurous acid 
is to be taken to be the same as if the words ‘Bisulphite of Lime ’ had been used, it may 
be as well to consult the case of Unwin v. Heaths, House of Lords Cases, vol. v. p. 505. 
“But even granting that certain specified bisulphites which could be used for the 
purpose, including bisulphite of lime, were indicated in the second part of Rattray’s 
specification, (for nothing but an aqueous solution of sulphurous acid is spoken of in 
the first part), they are not stated to be used at all as Dr. Medlock and Mr. Bailey use 
bisulphite of lime, viz. to prepare the substance to be preserved so as to enable it to 
resist the influence tending to decompose it. Mr. Rattray uses sulphurous acid only for 
this purpose, and calls in aid alkaline and earthy sulphites merely to pack the sub¬ 
stances which have been previously so prepared. In both methods of applying the 
second part of his invention he commences as follows:— 4 The substances having been 
submitted to the treatment described in the first part of my invention,’ etc. 
44 The cases we referred you to in our previous letter (Betts v. Menzies, House of 
Lords Cases, vol. x. p. 117, and Ralston v. Smith, House of Lords Cases, vol. xi. p. 223) 
show that the vague generalities in a specification such as are to be found in Rattray’s 
is no anticipation of a subsequent practicable invention, and we cannot but think that a 
person would be very ill-advised who would attempt to justify an infringement of Med¬ 
lock and Bailey’s patent by reference to Rattray’s specification. 
44 We remain, Gentlemen, yours truly, 
44 Chapman, Clarke, and Turner. 
“ To the Editors of the Pharmaceutical Journal .” 
We have really no object or interest in depreciating Messrs. Medlock and Bailey’s 
invention, nor do we desire to encourage the infringement of processes to the exclusive 
use of which they have any just claim. But the application of bisulphite of lime as a 
preservative agent, for preventing the decomposition of animal and vegetable substances, 
was not an original invention of Messrs. Medlock and Bailey, although some particular 
method or methods of applying it may have been. On being asked the question, we 
have stated, and now repeat, that bisulphite of lime had been used for the purpose 
referred to, and its use for that pupose made the subject of a patent, some years before 
the date of Medlock and Bailey’s patent. Messrs. Chapman now say, referring to their 
previous letter, 44 we did not mean to say, nor did we, in fact, say, that the words “ Sul¬ 
phite of Lime ” never occurred throughout the (Rattray’s) specification.” On a former 
occasion we remarked that these gentlemen must have written their letter without 
having first read Rattray’s specification, and now we must again observe that the sen¬ 
tence above quoted from their present letter must have been written without referring 
to the contents of their previous letter, from which we quote the following sentence 
verbatim :— 
“The specification to Rattray’s patent, 1861, referred to by you, does not mention 
bisulphite of lime. It is true that a claim is made for preserving animal and vegetable 
substances by means of alkaline and earthy sulphites, but neither in the claim nor in the 
description of the process is any particular sulphite indicated.” 
Now what we have said and repeat is, that Rattray’s specification does virtually men¬ 
tion bisulphite of lime, a solution of sulphite of lime in sulphurous acid (the best 
chemical description that could be given of it) being directed to be applied to meat for 
effecting its preservation. We say further that not only is sulphite of lime thus clearly 
indicated as a particular sulphite which is proposed to be used, but sulphite of alumina 
is also recommended for a similar purpose. In addition to these two sulphites, however, 
which are the only ones particularly indicated, a claim is made for the use of any of the 
alkaline or earthy sulphites to be used in connection with free sulphurous acid. In fact, 
Rattray recommended the application of a solution of sulphurous acid first, and the use 
of the sulphites after this; but as he states that the second part of his process (the use 
of sulphites) is more particularly applicable to the preservation of materials operated 
