If No. 4 is not sustained when No. 1 is fixed, can No 4 be sustained when the grate is fixed?

If No. 1 cannot be sustained when the grate is fixed, the tilting of the grate will not help it. There is no pretence of novelty in the use of a tilting grate; the plaintiff himself avows that it is simply the well known grate used in various stoves. The effective contrivance for the purpose of heating ovens on the improved principle is that of the raised door in connection with the sunken fire-pot. The tilting of the grate does not help the heating, it merely enables one to empty the fire-pot more easily. I think, therefore that No. 4 may be put aside for the two reasons because all that is important in it is covered by No. 1, and because, if not so covered, the tilting grate, which is the only point of difference, does not, either by itself or by its combination with the other things, constitute a patentable invention. Clark v. Adie, L.R. 10 Chy. 667, and other cases are against the plaintiff upon this claim.