Dennison Manufacturing Company v Monarch Marking Systems Inc

[1981] FCA 220

1

-11- I N THE FEDZ3AL COURT OF AUSTRALIA_

) VG NO. 1 3 0 O f 1 9 6 1

- VICTOKIA	DISTRICT	REGISTRY	)
1

GENERAL DIVISION 1

I n t h e m a t t e r o f t h e P a t e n t s Act

i952-1976

Between: DENNISON MANUFACTURING

C O W A N Y

Appl icant

I_	And:	MONARCH MARKING SYSTEMS,
- I N C .

Respondent

Coram: Smi thers J .

25 November 1 9 8 1

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Th i s is a matter conce rn ing an app l i ca t ion f o r g r a n t

of a p a t e n t i n r e l a t i o n t o a n a r t i c l e c a l l e d a connec to r . I n

t h e a p p l i c a t i o n t h e g r a n t was sought i n r e s p e c t of s i x claims

s a i d t o been re jec ted b e b a s e d on t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n . The a p p l i c a t i o n h a v i n g

by the Acting Deputy Commissioner of Patents the

a p p l i c a n t a p p e a l e d t o t h e Supreme C o u r t of Viccoria.

By t h e judgment of t h e Supreme Court the appeal was

a l l o w e d i n r e s p e c t of t h e s i x t h claim made i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n

b u t r e j e c t e d i n so f a r a . ~ it r e l a t e d t o t h e f i r s t , f i v e of such

2 .

claims. The a p p l i c a n t d e s i r e s t o appeal t o t h e F e d e r a l C o u r t

o f Aus t r a l i a f rom thac par t o f t h e jcldginent by which t h e

reEusal of the Act ing Deputy Commissioner to grant a p a t e n t

f o r t h e i nven t ion as c l a i m e d i n t h e f i r s t f i v e c l a i m s was

upheld. By s .148(1 ) o f t he Act an appeal l ies t o t h e F e d e r a l

Court from a judgment of F e d e r a l the Supreme Court but, by s.148(2)

n o t w i t h o u t l eave o f t h e C o u r t . T h i s is a n

a p p l i c a t i o n f o r s u c h l e a v e .

For c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f b r e v i t y t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s

fo l lowing are t o be read as though a l cngs ide t he r easons o f

the learned Judge, and understood by r e f e r e n c e t o t h e f a c t s

found by t he l ea rned Judge . Te rmino logy s i r r i l a r t o t ha t u sed

by the l ea rned Judge is a l s o = s e d h e r e i n .

The a p p l i c a t i o n res ts , bas i ca l ly , on t he submiss ions

t h a t ,

(1) i n h o l d i n g t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s claims o t h e r

t h a n claim V I , l a c k e d n o v e l t y t h e l e a r n e d

t r i a l J u d g e e r r e d i n a t l e a s t two c r i t i c a l

respects:-

( a ) f i n d i n g i n t h a t c l a i m o n e o f t h e

a p p l i c a n t ' s s p e c i f i c a t i o n ( t h e

s p e c i f i c a t i o n i n s u i t ) i n c l u d e d a l l

methods o f ob ta in ing the r e s u l t sought

-.-

3 .

b y t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s a l l e g e d i n v e n t i o n ,

and i n p a r t i c u l a r t h a t c l a i m o n e

claims a l l a r t i c l e s which conta in a l l

t h e c l a i m e d i n t e g e r s , and i f f l a n g e s

a r e a d d e d , w h e t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y

f u n c t i o n a l o r n o t , t h e r e s u l t a n t

a r t i c l e still i n f r i n g e s ; c

( b ) f i n d i n g i n t h a t s p e c i f i c a t i o n i n s o f a r as t h e

p u r p o r t e d t o s p e c i t y

" p r o n g s " a s i n t e g e r a n o f i t s

invent ion such prongs were an t ic ipa ted

-

by a s p e c i f i c a t i o n p u b l i s h e d by one

Baye t t o .

( 2 ) the l earned Judge was i n e r r o r i n h o l d i n g

t h a t t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n and claims were bad

f o r u n c e r t a i n t y and vagueness.

W i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e m a t t e r r e f e r r e d t o i n p a r a

( l ) ( a ) above i t is clear t h a t i f t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h e l e a r n e d

judge be sound , t hen t he ca se t ha t t he i nven t ion c l a imed by

t h e a p p l i c a n t i s a n t i c i p a t e d by what i s d i s c l o s e d i n t h e

French pa ten t spec i f ica t ion of one Bayet to , which was p laced

o n t h e s t rong s h e l v e s i n t h e A u s t r a l i a n P a t e n t Office i n 1 9 6 4 , is a

one .

4.

An i m p o r t a n t a s p e c t o f t h e B a y e t t o s p e c i f i c a t i o n is

t h a t as s t a t e d i n t h e summary the reo f " t h e s l i t head conta ins ,

a t t h e back, two flanges which by their pressure a g a i n s t t h e

f i n g e r s o f t h e hand which ho lds the head dur ing the t igh ten ing

o f t h e f a c i l i t a t i n g l o o p , c o n t r i b u t e t o o p e n i n g t h e t h e pro tuberances ." slit of t h e head and t o

t h e p a s s a g e o f And irr is

p o i n t e d o u t t h a t i n t h e j u d g m e n t u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e

l ea rned Judge conc luded t ha t t he sk i l l ed Aus t r a l i an r eade r of

t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f B a y e t t o would t r e a t each of the th ree

pa rag raphs o f t he summary as s t a t i n g a n e s s e n t i a l i n t e g e r of

B a y e t t o ' s i n v e n t i o n , " t h a t is t o s a y , h e would u n d e r s t a n d t h a t

t h e d i a m e t r a l slit in t he channe l head was e s s e n t i a l . . . and

a l s o t h e i n t e g e r of two f l anges hav ing t he func t ion se t o u t ,

were a l l e s s e n t i a l parts of the invent ion of Bayet to ."

I t i s c o n c e d e d t h e b y a p p l i c a n t t h a t t h e

s p e c i f i c a t i o n i n s u i t does no t exp res s ly exc lude a r t i c l e s

hav ing f l anges a t t he uppe r end o f t he socke t , bu t it is

submi t t ed t ha t by c l e a r i m p l i c a t i o n t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n i n s u i t

exc ludes f rom the s cope o f c l a im one any a r t i c l e w i th r e spec t

t o w h i c h s u c h f l a n g e s m i g h t c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e mode of

o p e r a t i o n o f t h e a r t i c l e d e s c r i b e d i n t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n . I t

is argued tha t the absence o f express ment ion of f langes is o f

l i t t l e i m p o r t a n c e i n i t s e l f , p a r t i c u l a r l y , as o n t h e

p r o b a b i l i t i e s t h e d r a f t s m e n o f t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n would have no

cause t o c o n t e m p l a t e e v e n t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t f l a n g e s m i g h t

be used i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e a r t i c l e i n q a e s t i o n . I t i s

5

urged tha t whether o r no t someth ing is w i t h i n a claim must be

consrdered as a m a t t e r of s u b s t a n c e a n d t h a t t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n

and c l a ims m u s t be cons t rued g iv ing t o t he words u sed t he i r

o rd inary and na tura l meaning .

On t h i s b a s i s it is i m p o r t a n t t o l o o k a t t h e i m p l i e d

l i m i t a t i o n s o f w h a t is claimed by r e f e r e n c e t o t h e n a t u r a l

meaning of t h e express ions used . I t is s a i d b y t h e a p p l i c a n t

t h a t claim one is i n e v f t a b l y l i m i t e d t o c l a i m o n l y a n a r t i c l e

t h e mode o f ope ra t ion of which i s f u l l y d e f i n e d t h e r e i n and

w h i c h c o m p r i s e s e x c l u s i v e l y t h e d e s i g n a t e d i n t e g e r s r e f e r a b l e

t o t h e mode o f o p e r a t i o n d e s c r i b e d t h e r e i n . I t is s a i d t h a t

t h e e s s e n t i a l f e a t u r e s o f c l a i m o n e a r e a connector comprising

v a r i o u s i n t e g e r s , n a m e l y , a f i l a m e n t , a s o c k e t o n t h e

f i l amen t , t he socke t compr i s ing a f i r s t non s l o t t e d p o r t i o n

and a prongs, and a series o f s e c o n d r e s i l i e n t s l o t t e d p o r t i o n f o r m i n g a p l u r a l i t y of

heads d i s t r ibu ted a long t he f i l amen t

" t o snap t h r o u g h t h e r e s i l i e n t p o r t i o n o f t h e s o c k e t . . . each

h e a d b e i n g s l i g h t l y l a r g e r t h a n t h e r e s i l i e n t p o r t i o n of t h e

socke t so t h a t i n s e r t i o n o f a head produces expansion of the

sa id p rongs and , a f t e r a head has been inser ted there through,

/

s a id p rongs snap i n beh ind t he head t o r e s t r a in w i thd rawa l o f

I

l

t h e head from t h e s o c k e t . " \

I t is u r g e d t h a t a c c o r ' d i n g t h e t o n a t u r a l

cons t ruc t ion of the words " so t h a t " where they appear i n t h e

c l a i m t h e y i n d i c a t e a mode of o p e r a t i o n t o which a l l t h e

6.

i n t e g e r s c o n t r i b u t e , and thereby limit t h e claim t o i n t e g e r s

p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e p r e c i s e mode o f ope ra t ion i nd ica t ed . And

i n t h i s c o n n e c t i o n it is u r g e d t h a t t h e l e a r n e d J u d g e f a i l e d t o g i v e t o t h e e x p r e s s i o n " s n a p i n " t h e p u r p o s i v e s i g n i f i c a n c e

which, i n i t s c o n t e x t , it r e a l l y d o e s h a v e . To " snap i n"

c o n n o t e s a c t i o n t h a t i s swift and e f f e c t i v e . It is argued

t h a t , i n t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e c o n s i s t o r y c l a u s e and claim one,

t h e words do appear t o e x p r e s s t h e n o t i o n t h a t the expans ion

f l e x i b i l i t y a n d r e s i l i e n c e o f t h e p r o n g s a r e a l l aimed

spec i f i ca l ly t o p roduce t he " snap i n" whereby spon taneous ly

a n d s w i f t l y e f f e c t i v e l y and t h e c l o s i n g of t h e p r o n g s b e h i n d t h e h e a d

immediately restrains withdrawal and completes

t h e t i e around the a r t i c l e s i n the connec to r . The expres s ion

"snap i n " seems p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p r o p r i a t e t o c o n v e y t h e c o n c e p t

of t h e p u r p o s e o feature f e a c h o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e i n t e g e r s

concerned.	Each	of	e a c h	i n t e g e r	c o n t r i b u t e s	t o	t h i s
r e su l t .

\

1 ' Accordingly it is p u t t h a t on a c o n s t r u c t i o n g i v i n g

\

a n a t w a l meaning t o w i thou t t h e t e r m s u s e d t h i s r e s u l t is s t a t e d t o 0

I

be ach i n t e g e r ieved necessa r i ly t he i n t roduc t ion of any o ther

i

a n d i n p a r t i c u l a r w i t h o u t f l a n g e s . T h u s , t h e

s i t u a t i o n b e i n g t h a t f l a n g e s a r e i n t e g e r s essent ia l t o t h e

mode o f o p e r a t i o n o f t h e B a y e t t o a r t i c l e , it is sai6 t h a t a n

a r t i c l e c o n s t r u c t e d t o use f l a n g e s f o r t h e f u n c t i o n i n d i c a t e d

i n t h e B a y e t t o s p e c i f i c a t i o n would n o t i n f r i n g e t h e a r t i c l e

de f ined i n t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n i n s u i t . T h i s i s c l e a r l y a

7.

s u b s t a n t i a l s u b m i s s i o n . I t is s a i d t h a t t h e c o n t r a r y v i e w

t aken by the l ea rned Judge r e su l t ed f rom a r e l u c t a n c e t o

a c c o r d t o t h e e x p r e s s i o n " so t h a t " i n claim one the purpos ive

e f f e c t which by a n a t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s h o u l d , i n t h e c o n t e x t ,

have been accorded t o i t . I t is p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e l e a r n e d

Judge regarded those words as i n t roduc ing a reason why t h e

heads were s l i g h t l y larger t h a n t h e s o c k e t . B u t looking a t

e/whole c l a i m t h e r e would seem t o be more t o it t h a n t h a t .

The th rus t o f t he words u sed i s t h a t t h e s i z e of t h e h e a d s ,

t h e p r o n g s , t h e i r c a p a c i t y t o e x p a n d , t h e i r r e s i l i e n c e a n d

l

\ , t h e i r c a p a c i t y t o c l o s e i n s t a n t l y and spontaneous ly a re a l l

f a c t o r s w o r k i n g t o g e t h e r f o r t h e f i n a l r e s u l t t h e o b j e c t of

"so t h a t " .

The reby any a l t e rna t ive mode of o p e r a t i o n by o t h e r

i n t e g e r s would seem t o b e i m p l i c i t l y e x c l u d e d .

W i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e matters r e f e r r e d t o i n p a r a .

l ( b ) s u c h a n t i c i p a t i o n would e x i s t i f t h e word "p rongs" i n i t s

c o n t e x t i n c l a i m o n e o f t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s s p e c i f i c a t i o n were

f l e x i b l e and wide enough i n meaning t o d e s c r i b e t h e p o r t i o n s

o f t h e l o w e r s o c k e t d e s c r i b e d i n B a y e t t o as r e s u l t i n g f r o m its

d i v i s i o n by t h e slit t h e r e i n .

It is p o i n t e d o u t by t h e a p p l i c a n t t h a t t h e l e a r n e d

Judge accep ted t ha t it would b e r e v e a l e d t o a p e r s o n s k i l l e d

i n t h e a r t t h a t what a re descr ibed i n v a r i o u s p a r t s o f t h e

8 .

E a y e t t o s p e c r f i c a t i o n as t h e h a l v e s o f the lower por t ion of

t h e s o c k e t s t i f f n e s s r e s u l t i n g f r o m s l i t t i n g , h a v e a p a r t i c u l a r

d u e t o t h e “ b a r r e l v a u l t ” s t ruc ture o f t h e s o c k e t .

I t seems t h a t it was l a r g e l y f o r t h i s r e a s o n t h a t t h e l e a r n e d

J u d g e f o u n d t h a t t h e f l a n g e s c o n s t i t u t e d a n essent ia l element

o f t h e B a y e t i r o s p e c i f i c a t i o n . T h e r e c a n b e l i t t l e d o u b t t h a t

t h e e x p r e s s i o n [ p r o n g s ” w i l l r e s p o n d i n m e a n i n g t o t h e

environment in W i c h it is used. Thus prongs operat ing as

p a r t o f a f r o n t nd loader could comprehend project ions very

d i f f e r e n t from	those	of	an	e lec t r ic	p lug .	I n	t h e	i n s t a n t	case
-\

it is a reasonable and even compelling view t h a t p r o n g s

-1

r e s u l t i n g f r o m s l o t t i n g of t h e l o w e r p o r t i o n o f t h e s o c k e t t o

i n d u c e p r o j e c t i o n s o f f l e x i b i l i t y a n d res i l ience would d i f f e r

m a t e r i a l l y f r o m p o r t i o n s of t h e s o c k e t r e s u l t i n g from a

d i a m e t r a l slit o f t h e s o c k e t . And he re aga in t he v i ew o f t he

learned Judge tha t on ly one d iamet ra l s l i t i s t o be i n fe r r ed

f r o m t h e B a y e t t o s p e c i f i c a t i o n i n a n y r e l e v a n t s e n s e , is

r e l i e d upon and i s impor tan t . I am u n a b l e t o r e s i s t t h e

c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e r e is much f o r c e i n t h e s e s u b m i s s i o n s .

Dr. Emmerson fo r t he r e sponden t a rgued w i th respect

t o t h e i s s u e s o f c o n s t r u c t i o n r e f e r r e d t o a b o v e t h a t t h e

n a t u r a l meaning of the re levant express ions , cons idered in the

l i g h t of p r i n c i p l e s a p p l i c a b l e t o c o n s t r u c t i o n of p a t e n t

s p e c i f i c a t i o n s and claims, suppor t ed t he conc lus ions o f t he

learned Judge . Be submit ted a l so t h a t t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n and

claims d id no t comply w i th t he p rov i s ions o f s . 4 0 o f t he Act.

9.

He submi t t ed a l so t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s o f the l ea rned Judge

r e f e r r a b l e t o t h e p r i n c i p l e f e a t u r e s o f B a y e t t o and t h e

f u n c t i o n o f t h e f l a n g e s r e f e r r e d t o t h e r e i n were unduly

un favourab le t o t he r e sponden t and should not be regarded as

f i n a l e v e n on t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n .

I n t h e end however, I cannot bu t remain impressed

o f f o r c e w i t h t h e the a p p l i c a n t .

r

r a i s e d i n p a r a . 2 t h e

._

appl i c a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e c l a i m s I -V

f a i l e d t o comply w i t h s.40 o f t h e Act because o f t he i r

vagueness and unce r t ak ty canno t be sus t a ined . I t is t r u e

t h a t i f t h e words used i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e v a r i o u s i n t e g e r s a r e

t aken ou t o f con tex t t hey l o se much o f the i r meaning, and the

learned Judge sa id o f claim one, t h a t "it s t a n d s r e v e a l e d i n

my opin ion as a combinat ion including some i n t e g e r s d e f i n e d by

v i r t u a l l y m e a n i n g l e s s p h r a s e s " . However, when one cons t rues

t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n as ind ica t ed above t he phrases used do not

appear to deserve such s t rong words. They are not then s imply

" i l l u s t r a t i o n s " or "onamatopaeia" . If cons t rued by r e f e r e n c e

t o p u r p o s e and e f f e c t t h e y a p p e a r t o speak w i t h meaning

s u f f i c i e n t l y c l e a r and s p e c i f i c f o r t h e purpose in hand ,

namely t o d e f i n e t h e claims. I t . was apparent f rom Dr.

Emmerson's approach to the p roblem se t by the judgment t h a t

t h e respondent 's main case was o n e o f a n t i c i p a t i o n by Bayet to

based on a c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n a n d claims i n

10.

accordance w i th t ha t o f t he l ea rned Judge . The c a s e t h a t

t h e r e was uncer ta in ty and vagueness was b u t g e n t l y p u t and

l a c k e d p a r t i c u l a r i t y . On t h e i s s u e o f u n c e r t a i n t y I t h i n k

t h a t Mr. Macaw was r i g h c when he s a id "my f r i e n d somewhat

f a i n t l y p e r h a p s s u b m i t t e d t h a t h i s Honour might be upheld on

t h a t b a s i s , a n t i c i p a t i o n b u t c e r t a i n l y h i s p r i m a r y s u b m i s s i o n was about

B a y e t t o . b y ... t h e r e a l q u e s t i o n i s

a n t i c i p a t i o n . "

\

The v i ews o f t h g , l e a r n e d J u d g e o n t h e i s s u e

\- / ' -1

d i s c u s s e d a b o v e c l e a r l y c o n s t l t u ed compel1Tng i n f l u e n c e s i n

the formation of h i s u l t i m a t e o p i n i o n i n respect o f t h e

a p p l i c a n t ' s f i r s t f i v e claims. If i n t h o s e yiews t h e l e a r n e d

Judge was i n e r r o r t h e u l t imate d e c i s i o n t o affirm t h e

r e j e c t i o n of those claims mus t s t and s e r ious ly cha l l enged . I t

is a n i m p o r t a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n a l s o i n a case l i k e t h i s t h a t

t h e a p p l i c a n t was e n t i t l e d t o s u c c e e d i n t h e Supreme Court

u n l e s s i t was clear t h a t a p a t e n t g r a n t e d on t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n

could	not	be	upheld.
Baving regard to the above it is my view t h a t i n t h e

words of Northrop J. in Federal Commissioner of Taxat ion v .

Forsyth ( 1 9 7 9 ) 37 F.L.R. 430 t h e r e ex i s t s a s u b s t a n t i a l and

real q u e s t i o n co be answered on t h e appea l and the appl icant

has a reasonable chance of sxcess t h e r e i n .

In cons ider ing whether l eave t o appeal should be

gran ted it is p r o p e r t o h a v e r e g a r d t o t h e n a t u r e of t h e

r i g h t s which a r e a t s t a k e . I n t h i s c a s e it is t h e r i g h t t o a

monopoly i n r e l a t i o n t o s o m e t h i n g w h i c h a p p e a r s t o be a u s e f u l

type of a r t i c l e a r i s i n g o u t of an exercise i n t h e n a t u r e of

i n v e n t i o n on the p a r t o f t h e a l l eged a p p l i c a n t . The cha l l enge , so f a r

a s a p p e a r s , is based upon an t i c ipa t ion by a paper

d i s c l o s u r e of a n a r t i c l e o f w h i c h t h e r e i s no evidence of

p r a c t i c a l p r o d u c t i o n or use . The cha l lenge does no t come from

t h e p r o p r i e t o r of t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n referable t o t h a t a r t i c l e .

Also t h e p r i n c i p l e of c o n s t r u c t i o n by r e f e r e n c e t o which t h e

learned Judge found tha t c la im one of t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n i n

s u i t claims a n a r t i c l e w i t h f l a n g e s , w h e t h e r or n o t

f u n c t i o n a l , r a i s e s a q u e s t i o n of cons iderable impor tance .

A c c o r d i n g l y l e a v e t o a p p e a l is g r a n t e d .