Colin Peter Nelson v Hillmark Industries Pty Ltd

[1990] APO 32

PATENTS ACT 1952

DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS

Re:Application No. 573107 by COLIN PETER NELSON and opposition by HILLMARK INDUSTRIES PTY. LTD.

Background
         Application No. 573107, for a patent for an invention relating to gas conversion of solid fuel barbecue kettles, comprises a complete specification lodged on 27 November 1986 with priority claimed from provisional specifications lodged on 28 November 1985 and 13 March 1986.  The application was advertised accepted on 26 May 1988 and opposed on 25 August 1988.  The opposition was heard in Canberra on 3 April 1990 : Mr G. Habel, patent attorney represented the applicant, Colin Peter Nelson, who was also present at the hearing, and Mr R. Catt, patent attorney, represented the opponent, Hillmark Industries Pty. Ltd.
         In a decision dated 10 April 1990 I decided that the opponent's evidence‑in‑reply, served on 29 September 1989, was not strictly in reply and I allowed the applicant three months to serve evidence‑in‑answer to the evidence served as evidence‑in‑reply.  Such evidence‑in‑answer was served on the opponent on 4 July 1990.  Both parties were then allowed a period in which to request a further hearing or to make written submissions and both chose the latter option.

The Specification
         The specification indicates that the invention relates to a "kit for converting a solid fuel fired barbecue kettle to operate by a gas burner ... so that the owner then has the option of utilizing either form of combustion".  There are seven claims defining the invention; claims 1‑3 are as follows:

"1.A method of converting a solid fuel barbecue kettle having a bowl and a lid to a gas fired barbecue kettle, said method including the steps of removing the solid fuel mechanism from the bowl positioning within the lower portion of the bowl at least one gas burner, a gas pipe to the burner passing through a hole in the bowl in the lower portion of the bowl and fixing the burner in position, and providing spacer means fitted to the upper edge of the bowl so that when the lid is positioned a ventilation gap is provided between the upper edge of the bowl and the lid.

2.Apparatus for converting a solid fuel barbecue kettle having a bowl and a lid to a gas fired barbecue kettle, said apparatus comprising at least one burner, means for supporting and attaching the burner or burners within the lower portion of the bowl, a gas pipe extending from said burner or burners through an aperture in the lower portion of the bowl, a gas supply hose connected to said gas pipe, and spacer means fitted to the upper edge of the bowl to space said lid from the upper edge of the bowl in the closed position of the lid to provide ventilation of the upper portion of the bowl to allow escape of the products of combustion from the gas burner without detrimental effect to the cooking of the food in the barbecue.

3.Apparatus as defined in claim 2, wherein said spacer means to provide ventilation comprise spaced spacer clips positioned on the upper edge of the bowl to space the lid therefrom."

Claims 4 and 5 are appended to claim 2 and include features relating to the gas burner : claim 4 refers to a round burner and claim 5 refers to parallel rectangular burners.  Claims 6 and 7 are omnibus claims referring to the drawings.
         The specification indicates that a known form of bowl‑
shaped kettle barbecue, which has a central aperture at the bottom for a damper and ash discharge mechanism, is particularly suitable for the invention.  However, if necessary with other forms of kettle barbecue, a hole can be made in the lower part of the kettle to allow the gas fittings to be attached.
         The specification emphasises the need for proper ventilation, viz. on page 4:

"Also, it has been found that if a gas burner or burners are fitted to an existing solid fuel barbecue kettle that for efficient operation, further provision must be made to the barbecue kettle to ensure that there is sufficient flow of air through the bowl, and that sufficient provision is made to allow the exhaust gases to escape."

And on pages 5 and 6:

"In order to assist in the efficient operation of the burner, means are provided to provide increased ventilation through the bowl, and these can be provided by providing vents in the bowl, either toward the upper end of the lower bowl, or in the lid itself.  The vents could be in the upper portion of the lid, but this could have the disadvantage that the hotter gases are allowed to escape, but in order to provide a conversion kit in which the effect of the lid is not diminished to an appreciable extent, and without having to form additional vents in the lid or bowl and to allow the bowl to be used with solid fuel by removing the burner, it is preferred that on top of the lower portion of the kettle around the rim thereof there are provided a number of small metallic clips 16, which when the lid is positioned on the lower portion of the bowl, slightly spaces the lid from the lower portion of the kettle.  In this way the exhaust gases from the burner or burners can escape but the hot gases are still retained in the lid to provide the heat for efficient cooking of the food ..."

In one described embodiment of the invention, the metallic clips are generally inverse U‑shaped with legs engaging both sides of the upper edge of the bowl, with a top portion supporting the lid and a lower central portion engaging the top edge of the bowl.  A plurality of clips are provided around the circumference of the bowl to space the lid from the rim of the bowl.  Another embodiment is described on page 6:

"Also clips could also be incorporated to support a grilling or cooking tray or grill or the like, by the tray or plate having a plurality of arms or handles which engage over the top edge of the bowl, which arms then by engaging over the top edge effectively space the lid from the edge of the bowl."

Grounds of opposition and the evidence
The notice of opposition refers to the grounds of opposition in paragraphs (c) to (i) of sub‑section 59(1) but submissions were made only on obviousness, novelty, manner of manufacture and section 40.
         The evidence‑in‑support comprises declarations and accompanying exhibits from:

. managing director of a company distributing WEBER (Registered Trade Mark) kettle barbecues.  He declares that since 1978 hundreds of these barbecues have been sold in Australia.  Catalogues marked as exhibits IRM 1 and IRM 2 show several Weber solid fuel and gas operated kettle barbecues with removable dome‑shaped lids.  The solid fuel units shown all have vents with rotatable dampers in the lid and bowl.  An earlier model gas unit has a set of lugs welded to the inner rim of the lid which allow the lid to be hung from the side of the bowl; there are no vents in the lid.  Mr McDonald declares that the lugs also serve to "create a ventilation gap at the juncture between the lid and the bowl".  In a later model gas unit the lugs are not used but the lid incorporates a set of slotted openings near its annular rim.  The catalogues show that all models can be used with accessories some of which are supported by parts which releasably engage or rest on the top edge of the kettle bowl.  Mr McDonald describes some of these parts as "clips" and declares that the accessories in position on the bowl "result in a small gap being formed between the lid and the bowl".

. a customer of Mr McDonald's company.  A photograph exhibit clearly shows the lugs on the lid of the early model Weber barbecue.

. a barbecue salesman.  He refers to a catalogue for a WEST END gas barbecue.  This unit is rectangular in shape with a lid hinged at one edge and able to be raised at the other edge to various positions to "control the amount of smoke and barbecue flavour".  This unit was sold in the period 1981 to 1983.

The evidence‑in‑answer is a declaration by the applicant and inventor Colin Peter Nelson.  He confirms that the Weber barbecues were available before the priority date and he declares that:

.The clips on the Weber accessories do not provide enough ventilation.

.The use of slots in the lid of the later Model Weber suggests that the lugs in the earlier model did not provide enough ventilation.

.None of the evidence‑in‑support relates to a conversion kit.

The evidence‑in‑reply comprises declarations and accompanying exhibits from:

. managing director of an engineering company.  He declares that he has had experience in designing and building gas conversion kits for solid fuel barbecues, including open‑type wood barbecues, and, during the period 1984 to 1985, Weber barbecue kettles.  Conversion of the Weber units is referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Mr Heatlie's declaration, portions relating to the ventilation are as follows:

"In some instances I removed the bottom rotary vent to improve the intake of oxygen into the bowl during operation of the burner, and so that the barbecue unit could not be operated with that vent closed.

From tests which I carried out on the units which I converted, in order to ensure that the burners operated efficiently, I found that adequate ventilation was provided by means of the vents in the bowl and the lid, and the ventilation gap created between the lid and the bowl by a wire rack holder which had one or more clips designed to clip onto the rim of the bowl.  In most instances, I found that these clips did not fully seat on the rim and projected above the rim of the bowl by several millimetres.  I found also that without such gap between the lid and the bowl created by the clips of the wire rack holder, the burner did not function adequately due to an insufficient amount of oxygen entering the cooking chamber."

. department store manager, declares that "the concept of converting solid fuel barbecue kettles to gas fired barbecues by the use of a gas conversion unit was known well before 28 November 1985" Exhibit KMG 1, a brochure for a FOODBALL BBQ, includes two pages of "assembly/operating instructions" which include alternative modes of operation by using an L.P. gas ring with a volcanic rock tray or by use of a "hickory chunk bowl" instead of the gas ring and rock tray.  Another exhibit establishes that the Foodball BBQ was available before the priority date of the applicant's claims.  Mr Growden also declares that he is familiar with the Weber barbecues; he refers to the Weber accessories in paragraph 6 of his declaration, viz:

"These clip‑on accessories do in fact create a ventilation gap between the lid and the bowl of the barbecue kettle which can be quite appreciable owing to the fact that the clips never fully seat themselves on the rim of the bowl and generally "stand proud" of its upper edge."

. a barbecue salesman, declares that the Foodball BBQ was sold to the public in 1982 and 1983 and

"that it was capable of being operated by solid fuel such as charcoal or heat beads, or by gas through a gas conversion unit supplied with the product".

. managing director of the opponent company, refers to exhibits which indicate that the Foodball was available in 1983 and the Weber in 1982; the Weber is shown with an accessory holder clip attached to the top edge of the bowl; the top of the clip is slightly above the top edge of the bowl.

I will now deal with the matter of whether the evidence‑in‑
reply is strictly in reply. At the hearing Mr Catt submitted that the evidence is in reply to paragraph 13 of Mr Nelson's declaration, which emphasises the conversion aspect of the invention. Mr Habel suggested that, because the conversion features were part of the specification, this matter should have been dealt with in the evidence‑in‑support. Mr Habel referred me to the case of Ernest Scragg & Sons Ltd.'s Application [1972] FSR 219 at 222 in this matter. I agree with Mr Habel on this point, the claims of the specification clearly indicate that conversion is an essential element of the invention and I think that this matter could have been addressed in the evidence‑in‑support. In opposition proceedings the onus is clearly on the opponent when presenting his case to adduce all evidence relevant to it in his evidence‑in‑support and may not, such as in his evidence‑in‑reply, include additional evidence which clearly might have been lodged in support. Thus, in my decision dated 10 April 1990, supra, I decided that "the evidence is not strictly in reply; the evidence includes matters which generally support the opposition and which are not strictly a rebuttal of the applicant's evidence‑in‑answer".
         The applicant's evidence‑in‑answer to the opponent's evidence‑in‑reply is a second declaration by Colin Peter Nelson.  He declares that:

.Mr Heatlie's barbeques did not have ventilation problems because they were either open or had vents in the sides.

.There is no evidence of any of Mr Heatlie's converted barbecues.

.Accessories, such as wire rack holders, hooked on the rim of the kettle base do not provide sufficient ventilation.

.The conversion kit of the invention has been approved by the Australian Gas Association and it was the first approval given for a conversion from solid fuel to gas.  Copies of a letter and approval certificate from the AGA prima facie confirm Mr Nelson's assertion in this regard.  In paragraph 5 of his declaration he refers to the approval thus:

"... it is clear that Mr Heatlie, unlike myself, never found the correct ventilation gap required to ensure the safe operation of the unit to enable AGA approval to be gained.  The AGA has recognised this and has insisted that my clips be of a given dimension to ensure this aspect is preserved and in this way the ventilation is different from Mr Heatlie's conversion which clearly has never operated safely or successfully."

.The Foodball BBQ was sold as a gas barbecue which could be converted to a solid fuel barbecue and it cannot be described as a solid fuel barbecue which may be converted to gas.  In paragraph 11 of his declaration he states:

"... the Foodball barbecue kettle was AGA approved as a gas operated kettle as discussed above and hence it was designed as a gas operated kettle.  Thus there was not supplied with the unit a gas conversion unit but a gas burner as standard.  With any gas barbecue kettle it is quite possible to remove the gas burner and operate the kettle as a solid fuel kettle, which is quite a different story to converting a solid fuel barbecue kettle to one to operate with gas fuel."

Submissions
         Mr Catt submitted firstly that the invention is not a manner of manufacture.  He suggested that the specifications do not particularize the construction of any of the integers of the conversion kit, that the kit contains mere off‑the‑shelf well‑known components and that therefore it is not a patentable combination of integers.  He referred to the following cases:

.British Celanese Ltd v Courtaulds Ltd (1933) 50 RPC 259

.Microcell Ltd's Application (1982) 102 CLR 232 at 251

.London Rubber Industries Ltd's Patent [1968] RPC 31 at 35

.Beecham Group Ltd's Application 47 AOJP 528 at 519

.Palmer v Dunlop Perdriau Rubber Co Ltd (1937) 59 CLR 30.

Secondly, Mr Catt submitted that, generally, the claims of the complete specification are either prior published, not novel or obvious in the light of the known Weber kettle barbecues, the known convertible Foodball BBQ's and the known accessories which attach to the top edge of the bowl.  Particularly, he suggested that there was no novelty in claim 3 since the clips claimed could take any form and could include a paper clip, a dog clip or a clothes peg.  He argued that there was no novelty in the purpose of the apparatus claimed in claim 2, and that the claims were generally not novel in the light of the prior use of apparatus referred to in the declarations of Messrs Heatlie and Scrivener.  He also argued that the invention was obvious in the light of the common general knowledge in the art relating to the development of the Weber gas barbecues, that a gas appliance "must have a ventilation gap by law" and that the present invention is a mere workshop improvement and is a mere analogous use of known apparatus.  He suggested that a notional skilled worker would know that a ventilaton gap is required between the lid and the bowl and that the gap could be determined by trial and error.  He referred to the following cases:

.Acme Bedsteads v Newlands Bros Ltd (1929) 58 CLR 689

.Griffin v Isaacs (1942) 12 AOJP 739

.Gum v Stevens (1924) 33 CLR 267

.Drysdale and Sidney Smith & Blyth Ld v Davey Paxman & Co (1938) 55 RPC 95. At page 113 Luxmore J. stated:

"In my judgment this Claim on its true construction is directed to the mounting of the hopper feed throat and grinding bar as one unit and supplying it with a hinge and to nothing else.  The attack on its validity is substantially directed to subject‑matter.  Its invalidity, it is argued, arises from the fact that the application of the hinge to the hopper feed throat and grinding bar mounted as a single unit in a mill for grinding paint of a known type is nothing but the application of a common engineering device for the purpose for which that device is commonly used ‑ namely, convenience."

.Harwood v Great Northern Railway Co (1865) 35 LJQB 27

.Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co & Anor v Biersdorf (Australia) Ltd (1980) 144 CLR 253.

Thirdly, Mr Catt submitted that the complete specification does not comply with section 40 of the Patents Act. He suggested that claims 1 and 2 are wider than the consideration of the inventor because they are not limited to a conversion kit and because the spacer means could take any form including a cylindrical ring or a bent piece of wire. He submitted that the complete specification is generally insufficient, because, in the light of comments made by Mr Nelson that his barbecue achieves the most efficient burning of the gas, no details are given on how this efficient burning is achieved. He also submitted that the claims are to the "mere concept of conversion" and do not include features which give the desired result i.e. most efficient burning of the gas.
         Mr Habel firstly submitted that Mr Sampson's evidence is irrelevant because it is not related to a kettle barbecue.  With regard to Mr McDonald's declaration, Mr Habel argued that the lugs on the lid of the Weber barbecue are for hanging the lid on the side of the bowl, that the accessory clips are not adequate for ventilation and that this is why Weber uses slots in the lid of its later model.  With regard to Mr Growden's declaration and the other evidence relating to the Foodball BBQ, Mr Habel argued that the Foodball BBQ is designed as a gas barbecue which can also be used for solid fuel.  Also, he emphasised the part in paragraph 6 of Mr Growden's declaration, supra, which refers to the ventilation gap created by the clip‑on accessories being "quite appreciable", and suggested that this implies that the gap is not sufficient, even though it may be "quite appreciable".  With regard to Mr Heatlie's declaration, Mr Habel suggested that it was of low probative value because there is no corroborating evidence of Mr Heatlie's converted barbecues and that the declarant's comments with regard to obviousness should be disregarded because he is an expert in the art and therefore overqualified.  Finally, he submitted that the invention has been a commercial success and has merit in that it solves the ventilation problems without having to resort to holes in the lid of the kettle.
         At the hearing Mr Nelson emphasised the AGA approval of his invention.  He stated that "anyone can put parts together" and that his invention was "not a primitive kit".  He said that it is not common knowledge that a space between the bowl and lid of a kettle barbecue can be used for ventilation purposes, that the principles involved in converting from solid fuel to gas were "totally different" from those involved in the reverse process, that "the lid has to be correctly raised" and that he was inspired because nobody had been able to solve the problems associated with conversion of a solid fuel barbecue to gas.

Decision
         I will first consider the matter of priority dates.  Provisional specification PH3619 lodged on 28 November 1985 relates to a conversion kit including a gas burner, a gas supply pipe and threaded connectors inter alia, but there is no disclosure of spacer clips between the bowl and lid of the kettle barbecue.  Spacer clips are disclosed in provisional specification PH5026 lodged on 13 March 1986, and, since this feature is included in the claims of the complete specification, the priority date of the claims is therefore 13 March 1986.
         Turning to the matter of common general knowledge, I think that the evidence establishes that both the Weber and Foodball barbecues are well known.  The Weber solid fuel barbecues and gas barbecues are sufficiently different to conclude that it was not a matter of common general knowledge at the priority date that one could be converted to the other.  The Foodball barbecue however is a different matter; the assembly/operating instructions supplied therewith clearly indicate that the one barbecue can be used either with gas or with solid fuel.  There is nothing before me to conclude that the Foodball is primarily a gas barbecue, as suggested by the applicant.  Also, if the Foodball has been initially assembled as a solid fuel barbecue, I think that it could be converted to a gas barbecue using the parts supplied and without the need for the owner to exercise his or her inventive faculty.
         I think that the general concept of conversion of solid fuel barbecues to gas is also a matter of common knowledge and I conclude from my own experience and from Mr Heatlie's evidence that this concept has been applied especially to open hearth type barbecues.  Apparatus such as gas burners, gas pipes and threaded connectors are well known components of most gas burning appliances.
         I think that it is common knowledge that any gas or solid fuel burning appliance needs some ventilation.  I agree with the submissions that the lugs welded to the lid of the early model Weber gas barbecue provide a ventilation space between bowl and lid.  This is most likely since there are no other vents in the lid in that model.  In the solid fuel Weber models and in the Foodball barbecue ventilation is provided by damped vents or slots in the lid.  The evidence indicates that a wide variety of accessories have been available for the Weber barbecues and that some of these accessories, which attach to the rim of the bowl, do leave a small space between the bowl and the lid.  This space also would inherently provide some ventilation.
In the light of the prior art, I will now consider the complete specification. I note that there is scant reference to the prior art and the improvement which constitutes the invention. The law in this regard is derived from judgements of the High Court in May v Higgins (1915) 21 CLR 119 and in Sami S. Svendsen Inc v Independent Products Canada Ltd (1969) AOJP 647. In cases where invention lies in an improvement in known apparatus (as opposed to invention being in a new combination of integers), the addressee should be able to clearly distinguish the true nature of the invention from the prior art. Kitto J. in the latter case, supra, stated:

"Assuming that there was an inventive step in this improvement, I am of opinion, first, that the specification as a whole offends against s.40(1) by not describing the invention, since it does not enable the reader to discern what was the invention in the total thing that it describes; and, secondly, that the claims themselves offend against s.40(1) by defining as the invention something that was much more extensive than the invention ...

This is a ground upon which, in the public interest even if not for any other reason, the Deputy Commissioner could, and in my opinion should, have upheld the objections and refused to grant a patent upon the specification in its present form ...

I do not mean that in every case of opposition it is a function of the Commissioner to investigate for himself the question how the actual invention compares with the invention as claimed. What I have said is based upon the circumstance that the evidence of Mr Flomen, one of the actual inventors, contains clear admissions, indeed positive assertions, of facts which leave no room for doubt that the specification both in its description and in its claims disobeys s.40(1). The nature of the disobedience is such that the specification is likely to mislead, and for that reason the application ought to be refused ..."

In the case before me I do not think there is any invention in the concept of converting a solid fuel kettle barbecue to gas or to the steps of "removing the solid fuel mechanism from the bowl positioning within the lower portion of the bowl at least one gas burner, a gas pipe to the burner passing through a hole in the bowl in the lower portion of the bowl and fixing the burner in position ...", according to claim 1 for example.  Clearly, the inventive concept is related to the spacer means between lid and bowl and the ventilation provided thereby.  The inventor has discovered that if a substantial space is provided between the bowl and the lid of the kettle barbecue, then this space provides substantially all the ventilation necessary for efficient burning of the gas and proper cooking.  Spacers such as accessory clips are known, and therefore the specification should clearly distinguish the spacers of the invention from these known spacers, but I think the specification is insufficient in this respect.  The specification gives the impression that the invention resides in the use of certain conversion apparatus including any spacer means, whereas it seems that the invention resides more in the dimensional characteristics of the spacer means per se.  In his evidence Mr Nelson emphasises the fact that he has found the "correct ventilation gap" and that the AGA "has insisted that [his] clips be of a given dimension" such that the barbecue can operate "safely and successfully"; but these significant features of the invention are not referred to in the complete specification.
         Furthermore, there is another matter relating to the specification which causes me some concern.  In one of the few references to prior art, the specification on page 2 indicates that the barbecue kettle shown in the drawings is "one form of barbecue kettle which is currently on the market".  I note that there are no damped vents (or any other ventilation means) in the lid shown in the drawings.  Thus, in the light of firstly, Mr Nelson's emphasis on the invention relating to converting a solid fuel barbecue kettle, and secondly, the evidence before me which shows known solid fuel barbecue kettles with damped vents in the lid, it is not clear why the lid in the drawings does not have a damped vent.  In fact, the only barbecue kettle referred to in the evidence without vents in the lid is a gas barbecue, not a solid fuel barbecue; i.e. the early model Weber previously referred to.  Thus, the specification gives the impression that known solid fuel barbecue kettles have no vents in the lid and this is contrary to the evidence.  This raises questions about whether the invention is suitable for the known kettles with vents in the lid or whether the invention is only suitable for solid fuel kettles without vents in the lid, if in fact such barbecue kettles exist.  The former alternative seems unlikely since the applicant suggested that his invention provides an alternative to having vent holes in the lid.
         I conclude therefore that the complete specification does not fully describe the invention because it is not clearly distinguished from the prior art and because the best method of performing the invention has not been described.
         I will now consider the claims of the complete specification.  As I have previously indicated, the inventive concept seems to relate to the characteristics and dimensions of the spacer means being such that substantially all the ventilation occurs through the space between bowl and lid.  This inventive concept is not inherent in the features of claims 1‑5 which do not exclude arrangements where substantial ventilation may be provided by other means.  These claims are therefore beyond the consideration of the inventor and not fairly based.
         Claim 1 is broad enough to include a method of converting the well‑known Foodball BBQ using parts supplied therewith for the gas components and using a well‑known accessory such as a wire rack holder as a spacer means.  I think that it is obvious that such a space would provide some ventilation, which is all that is required by the claim.  I conclude that claim 1 is obvious having regard to the Foodball BBQ and the use of well‑known accessories for barbecue kettles.
         Claim 2 is prima facie  narrower in scope than claim 1 because there is further characterization of the spacer means.  However, I think that the part from "to allow escape ...", line 12 to "... the food in the barbecue", last line, is difficult to construe with regard to defining the characteristics of the spacer means.  The products of combustion may have more effect on some foods than on others and it is not clear whether this part of the claim limits the claim to apparatus which allows substantially all the products of combustion to escape through the space between lid and bowl.  Thus I find claim 2 to be not clear.
With regard to whether the claims are directed to a manner of new manufacture or to a mere kit or collocation of known parts, I think that it is not necessary for me to decide on that matter since, firstly, I have found that the specification, including the claims, does not comply with section 40 and that claim 1 is obvious, and secondly, the law is such that where one of the integers or steps is new and otherwise patentable the inclusion of such an integer in a mere collocation is not objectionable under section 35(1)(a). See BUSM v Fussel 25 RPC 631 at 649 and NRDC's Application 78 RPC 134 at 138. In this case I think that it may be possible to define such an integer.
I do not agree with Mr Catt's submission that an invention should demonstrate an improved result; there may be merit in a mere alternative. See Renlita Products Pty Ltd v Lees (1967) AOJP 3268 at 3270 and Scott v Hamling & Co Ltd (1897) 14 RPC 123. In this case the applicant's invention seems to fit into that category.

Conclusion
I find that the opposition succeeds in that the specification does not comply with sub‑section 40(1)(a), that claims 1‑5 do not comply with sub‑section 40(2), and that claim 1 is obvious. However, I think that there is patentable subject matter disclosed in the specification and that the inventor has demonstrated some inventive ingenuity in developing his invention. Consequently I allow Mr Nelson 60 days from the date of this decision to propose amendments to fully describe the invention and to claim that patentable subject matter.
         I award costs against the applicant.

(J.I. WELSH)

Attorneys for the applicant: Collison & Co., Adelaide