James Howden Australia Pty Ltd v Flakt A.B

[1986] APO 38

In the Matter of the Patents Act 1952

‑ and ‑

In the Matter of Application No. 540554 for a Patent by JAMES HOWDEN AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD.

‑ and ‑

In the Matter of Opposition thereto by FLAKT A.B.

DECISION OF A SUPERVISING EXAMINER OF PATENTS:
Background
         Application 540554 entitled "Stall‑Free Axial Flow Fan" was lodged 3 December, 1981, deriving priority from PE6741 dated 3 December, 1980.  Acceptance was advertised on 22 November, 1984 and on 21 and 22 February, 1985 respectively D. Richardson & Sons Limited and Flakt A.B. lodged notice of opposition under section 59. The opponents managed subsequent actions jointly, however D. Richardson & Sons Limited withdrew their opposition shortly before the matter came to hearing in Sydney on 15 October, 1986.
         At the hearing the applicant (Howden) was represented by Mr. P.C. Marsh, Patent Attorney, of F.B. Rice & Co., Sydney, and the remaining opponent (Flakt) was represented by Mr. A. Archibald Q.C. advised by Mr. A.J.F. Ward, Patent Attorney of Clement Hack & Co., Melbourne.
The Specification
         The description commences by stating that:

"The present invention relates to axial or mixed flow blowers or suction fans and more particularly to such blowers and fans which exhibit improved stability of operation."

The background art to the invention is described in the following terms:

"It is known that conventional fans suffer from the problem of stalling when the gas flow past the fan blades breaks away from the surface of the blades and/or the housing surrounding the fan.  The fans and blowers according to the present invention are designed to significantly reduce the liability of a stall condition occurring over a wide range of possible operating conditions."

Then follows general and specific description, the latter making reference to a number of diagrams and pressure‑volume performance graphs.  The specification terminates with the following statement of claims:

"1.A high pressure axial or mixed flow blower or suction fan, comprising: an elongate tubular casing, an impeller disposed within said casing and having a hub rotatable about a longitudinal axis of the casing, and also having a plurality of blades extending radially from said hub, each blade having a tip with a leading edge and a trailing edge, a stationary center tube positioned within said casing upstream of the hub and carrying a plurality of guide vanes extending radially therefrom, the casing comprising a tubular inlet portion the cross sectional area of which is constant or is reduced gradually along its length and which extends at least from the guide vanes in a downstream direction until it terminates in a tubular intermediate portion of larger cross sectional area than the inlet portion at its point of termination, the intermediate portion in turn terminating in a tubular outlet portion which is no larger in cross sectional area than the inlet portion at its point of termination, the inlet portion and the intermediate portion being connected by an imperforate and substantially annular wall and the intermediate portion and the outlet portion being connected by an imperforate and substantially annular wall the impeller being so positioned that the leading edge of the tip of each blade is positioned within the intermediate portion while the trailing edge thereof is positioned within the outlet portion.

2.An axial or mixed flow blower or suction fan as claimed in claim 1, in which said casing is of circular cross section along its whole length.

3.An axial or mixed flow blower or suction fan as claimed in claim 1 or claim 2, in which the diameter of the intermediate portion is from 1.1 to 1.5 times the diameter of the impeller.

4.An axial or mixed flow blower or suction fan as claimed in claim 3, in which the diameter of the intermediate portion is from 1.2 to 1.4 times the diameter of the impeller.

5.An axial or mixed flow blower or suction fan as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 4, in which a plurality of fixed vanes are provided in the intermediate portion of the casing, each vane extending axially of the casing and radially of the hub.

6.An axial or mixed flow blower or suction fan as claimed in claim 5, in which each vane decreases in depth in the direction of the outlet portion of the casing.

7.An axial or mixed flow blower or suction fan according to any one of claims 1 to 6 in which intermediate portion is joined to the inlet portion by an annular wall portion which lies in a plane at right angles to the longitudinal axis of the casing.

8.An axial or mixed flow blower or suction fan according to any one of claims 1 to 7 in which intermediate portion is joined to the outlet portion by an annular wall portion which lies in a plane at right angles to the longitudinal axis of the casing.

9.An axial or mixed flow blower or suction fan substantially as hereinbefore described with reference to Figs. 1 and 2, 3 and 4, or 5, 6, and 7."

The Evidence in Support and Reply
         The evidence in support of the opposition is concerned solely with showing that the invention the subject of the application has been prior published.  There are five declarations comprising this evidence, respectively, by Messrs. Norman Henry Haertsch, John Boyd Bell, Ernst Kurz, Robert William Finch and John Northey Ashford.  I will review the more relevant portions of these.
 ‑ Mr. Haertsch deposes that he was a director of Multitech Industries Pty. Limited of Sydney between 1966 and 1982.  At that time Multitech represented the interests in Australia of Kuhnle Kopp & Kausch A.G. (K.K.K.) of West Germany, fan manufacturers.  It seems that the association of Multitech with K.K.K. involved finding of potential customers in Australia and quoting on behalf of K.K.K.   Mr. Haertsch emphasises the point that the technical information received by Multitech from K.K.K. was always for the purpose of selling equipment in Australia, and there were no obligations of secrecy or confidentiality involved.  On 30 June, 1978 he wrote to K.K.K. requesting 40 brochures illustrating axial flow fans "without unstable operating range", a feature which K.K.K. referred to as "KSE".  He states that he received the brochures in 1978 and he exhibits both the letter (NHH1) and a copy of a brochure (NHH2), the brochure being designated as "KKK01‑04284".  The brochure includes a sectional drawing of an axial flow fan arrangement having the "KSE" feature, however I note at this stage a printing date on this brochure of June 1981.  Mr. Haertsch further declares that in January 1978 Multitech received from K.K.K. a drawing No. 13330161015(0) (hereinafter "015") and that he wrote to International Combustion Australia Limited (I.C.A.L.) submitting a quote and including, inter alia, a copy of the 015 drawing.  This drawing is an engineering working drawing of an axial flow fan arrangement and appears in the evidence as exhibit NHH7.  It carries a date of 29 November, 1976.
         There is a further declaration by Mr. Haertsch appearing in the evidence in reply.  In this declaration he explains further the circumstances of his Company's acquisition of the brochures from K.K.K.  He includes an exhibit NHH10 which comprises one such brochure in the German language having a printing date thereon of 1 October, 1977, and which he states was received before June 1978.  Mr. Haertsch also describes circumstances in which he sent material including either a copy of the brochure (01‑04284) or the drawing 015 (or both) to I.C.A.L., B.H.P. (Wollongong) and to the Electricity Commission of N.S.W.
 ‑ Mr. Kurz states that he is the Deputy General Manager of K.K.K. and head of the Marketing Department, and has been employed with the Company since prior to 1973.  He continues that in May 1973 his Company entered into a licence agreement with Licensintorg Moscow in relation to an improved type of axial flow fan which was the result of previous research and development work by the Institute Dongiprouglemasch in Donezk, U.S.S.R.: the Company had been manufacturing conventional axial flow fans prior to this but these suffered the problem of stalling.  He then makes the following statements:

"The solution to this problem which was licensed to us by Licensintorg was primarily the provision of a by‑pass duct, formed by inserting an annular ring of greater diameter than the impeller casing, between the end of the inlet casing and the beginning of the outlet casing.

On the 29th November, 1976 my Company produced a standard part drawing No. 13330161015(0) which embodied the antistall device as licensed by Licensintorg.  Now produced and shown to me marked exhibit A is a copy of drawing No. 1330161015(0).  It is and always has been my Company's policy to use a standard identification number for a drawing and maintain and use that same number in relation to all copies of the drawing.  Any changes at all in the drawing would warrant the execution of a new drawing and the assignment of a new drawing number.  Thus the information contained in drawing No. 1330161015(0) has not altered since the 29th November, 1976."

Mr. Kurz also confirms Mr. Haertsch's statements concerning Multitech's receipt of the brochures of the fan having the KSE feature, and the 015 drawing.  In paragraph 6 of his declaration he explains that an English language version of the brochure was first printed on 6 April, 1978, and his exhibit C is a copy of one such brochure, displaying a printing date of 6 April, 1978.
 ‑ Mr. Ashford deposes that he is presently Engineering Manager with D. Richardson & Sons Ltd. (the withdrawn opponent) and has been involved as an engineer with the production and installation of industrial fans in Australia for his Company for approximately 20 years.  Of particular interest are Mr. Ashford's comments about how an engineer would have interpreted the drawing 015 (exhibit A to Kurz) and the K.K.K. brochure.  He states about the drawing:

"In 1977 and 1978 when Multitech was providing quotations for K.K.K. fans to be used in the Loy Yang project.  Engineers involved in installing and operating axial flow fans would have appreciated the importance and function of the K.S.E. anti‑stall device.

An Australian engineer in 1978 with experience in installing and operating axial flow fans, upon seeing only the drawing of exhibit A to the declaration of Kurz, would have realized that the annular chamber located on the inlet side of the impeller was probably a recirculating chamber to provide control over the stalling range of the fan.

The use of recirculating chambers in fans was known in Australia by 1978 but had not been used in axial flow fans."

He makes similar comments about the brochure and further notes that the latter explains that the annular chamber allows part of the capacity aspirated by the impeller to flow back at low capacities, acting as a by‑pass duct.
 ‑ Mr. Bell is an engineer with the State Electricity Commission of Victoria (S.E.C.V.).  From his declaration, it seems that in 1977/78 the S.E.C.V. was considering tenders in respect of equipment for the Loy Yang Power Station, then under construction.  I.C.A.L. was one of the tenderers.  He makes comments and exhibits documents confirming this, and that the I.C.A.L. tender included reference to the K.K.K. KSE type fans.  Mr. Bell is not very clear on the fan construction except by inference, and as in my view there is little of probative value in his declaration, I will say no more about it.
 ‑ Mr. Finch is an employee of I.C.A.L.  He deposes that in 1978, his Company was submitting tenders to the S.E.C.V. relating to equipment for the Loy Yang Power Station : it was the aim of the Company to supply K.K.K. fans obtained from Multitech.  I make the same comment about this declaration as I made about Mr. Bell's declaration.
The Evidence in Answer
         The evidence in answer presented by the applicant comprises three declarations, respectively by Albert John Forrester, Ernest William Stutchbury, and Bruce Arthur Russell.  Again, I will refer only to the more relevant portions.
 ‑ Mr. Forrester declares that he is the Secretary of the S.E.C.V.  He explains that the S.E.C.V. has a policy that information received from manufacturers and suppliers, both in pre‑tender discussions and in the tender documents themselves, are considered to be confidential.  He continues that he has read the declaration of John Boyd Bell (an engineer with the S.E.C.V.) and makes the statement that:

"even if the information referred to in that Declaration was given to the Commission I consider the Commission would have regarded the information as confidential and moreover would have been expected by the supplier to have maintained the information as confidential."

‑ Mr. Stutchbury is the Managing Director of I.C.A.L.  He deposes that he has read the declaration by Mr. Finch (also of I.C.A.L.) but nevertheless states that, firstly, the information provided to an authority, such as the S.E.C.V., is supplied on the basis that it is confidential, and in the event of an unsuccessful tender, remains so; secondly, the information supplied by Multitech to I.C.A.L. was considered to have been supplied in confidence, as was the tender document supplied by I.C.A.L. to S.E.C.V.
 ‑ Mr. Russell is a Director of the applicant Company, James Howden Australia Pty. Ltd.  He has been with the Company for 15 years holding positions relating to axial flow fan research and development, technical negotiations for fan contracts and the preparation of tenders.  He also had post graduate experience (prior to joining Howden) in the aerodynamics of axial flow compressors and fans.
         Mr. Russell describes in some detail the development of the fan, the subject of the application.  Of particular interest in this respect are his comments that in 1978 Howden became aware of the patents applied for in 1963 by the Institute Dongiprouglemasch of Donezk, U.S.S.R. which describe a device for stabilising the pressure volume characteristics of an axial flow fan.  He refers to U.S. Patent 3,189,260 as an example, and describes the essential characteristic of the arrangement disclosed therein as being distinctly different from that of the fan of the application in suit.  Thus the invention in suit uses an annular chamber whereas the Russian device utilises "a system incorporating a tubular ferrule ring or liner creating a passage upstream of the impeller".  Mr. Russell notes that during 1980 his attention was directed to a paper by Professor J.P. Gostelow (then head of the School of Mechanical Engineering at the N.S.W. Institute of Technology), including a translation from the German of an original paper by Dr.‑Ing. H.D. Hennsler of K.K.K.; the latter paper had been presented at the 1977 V.G.B. Kraftwerkstechnik.  The Gostelow paper is exhibit BAR‑7.  The Hennsler paper included therein describes an axial flow fan arrangement with an anti‑stall system similar to that of the Russian device as exemplified in U.S. Patent 3,189,260.  Mr. Russell goes on to confirm the contents of Mr. Forrester's declaration in that he states that, in his experience, the view generally held in industry is that technical information supplied to a power supply authority for the purpose of winning a contract is considered by the supplier and the authority as being confidential.
         Finally, Mr. Russell has commented on the drawing 015 (exhibits NHH7 and A) in the following terms:

"... I do not believe that an Australian engineer experienced in installing and operating axial flow fans in 1978 would have understood or appreciated the significance of the drawing of Exhibit A of the declaration by Ernst Kurz without explanation of its function.  Such an engineer may well have appreciated the problems inherent with stalling in axial flow fans but I do not believe that seeing the above drawing would make its function apparent to a normally competent engineer working in the field."

The Submissions
         The opponent has alleged that the claims of the Howden application are prior published by each of two documents.  Thus Mr. Archibald for Flakt has submitted that the invention as a whole is published by, or differs by inconsequential variations from, the disclosures of the drawing 015, and the K.K.K. brochure by virtue of publication thereof, pursuant to transmittal of either or both of these documents to:
         .  Multitech
         .  I.C.A.L.
         .  S.E.C.V.
         .       B.H.P. Wollongong, and
         .  N.S.W. Electricity Commission,
in all cases before the priority date of the application and without any fetters of confidentiality.
         On behalf of Howden, Mr. Marsh has made a number of counter submissions which may conveniently be summarised as follows:

(i)Mr. Haertsch is an unreliable declarant.  In paragraph 8 of his first declaration he states that he received the K.K.K. brochure of exhibit NHH2 in 1978 ‑ however that brochure as exhibited carries a printing date of June 1981.  Similarly, in paragraph 7 of his second declaration he states that the letters which he sent to the N.S.W. Electricity Commission and to B.H.P. Wollongong were dated August 1980, yet included the brochure exhibited as NHH2, which was only printed in June 1981.  Consequently, I should discount the whole of Mr. Haertsch's evidence.

(ii)Mr. Haertsch was an employee of Multitech at the time K.K.K. sent the drawings and brochures to him.  As Multitech was the agent of K.K.K. in Australia and the agent "stands in the shoes of the principal", there was no publication of these documents as K.K.K. were effectively sending them to themselves.

(iii)The disclosure of the drawing and brochure to I.C.A.L. and to S.E.C.V. does not constitute publication as there were implied obligations of confidence involved, as deposed by the applicant's declarants. An Obligation of confidence need not be expressed, but may be implied ‑ see Catnic Components Ltd. v. C. Evans & Company 1983 FSR 401.

(iv)Mr. Kurz in paragraph 2 of his declaration states that K.K.K. entered into a licence agreement in 1973 with Licensintorg in relation to a fan developed by the Institute Dongiprouglemasch in Donezk, U.S.S.R.  In paragraph 8, he identifies the fan as being in accordance with the drawing 015.  However, on a consideration of the paper of Dr.‑Ing. Hennsler of K.K.K. (included in exhibit BAR7), the anti‑stall fan described is apparently the same one developed by the aforesaid Institute and presumably as licensed to K.K.K. It is of the early Russian type as exemplified in U.S. Patent 3,189,260, and is distinctly different from the fan of drawing 015, and, incidentally, the fan of the present invention.  For example, it does not have an annular anti‑stall chamber about the periphery overlapping the impeller.  As the paper of Dr.‑Ing. Hennsler was delivered in 1977, it would appear therefore that K.K.K. either did not have the fan depicted in drawing 015 and the brochures at that time, or they were going to some lengths to suppress publication thereof.  In either alternative, the evidence of Flakt appears to be in conflict with these matters.

(v)Even if I find the documents in question to have been published before the priority date of the Howden application, they do not anticipate the invention.  For anticipation to be established, it is necessary that expert evidence should be adduced concerning the interpretation of those documents, and this has not been done.  Note also Mr. Russell's comments on this point.*

_________________________________________________________________

*These comments are set out in this decision at the end of the section appearing under the heading "The Evidence in Answer".

The comments made by Lord Reid in C. Van Der Lely N.V. v. Bamfords Ltd. (1963) 80 RPC 61 at page 71 are also apposite to this situation:

"..... There is no doubt that, where the matter alleged to amount to anticipation consists of a written description, the interpretation of that description is, like the interpretation of any document, a question for the court assisted where necessary by evidence regarding the meaning of technical language.  It was argued that the same applied to a photograph.  I do not think so.  Lawyers are expected to be experts in the use of the English language, but we are not experts in the reading or interpretation of photographs.  The question is what the eye of the man with appropriate engineering skill and experience would see in the photograph, and that appears to me to be a matter for evidence.  Where the evidence is contradictory the judge must decide.  But the judge ought not, in my opinion, to attempt to read or construe the photograph himself; he looks at the photograph in determining which of the explanations given by the witnesses appears to be most worthy of acceptance.

The photograph must be looked at through the eyes of the typical addressee of the appellants' specification ‑ the kind of person who would be expected to make a machine of this kind."

Prior Publication/Novelty
         Where prior publication by document is alleged, there are two questions to be considered.  The first is, was the document available to the public before the priority date of the application, and the second is, does the document disclose to a person skilled in the relevant art, at its date of publication, the invention, the subject of the application?  In dealing with these questions I find it most convenient to follow in order the points as summarised from Mr. Marsh's submissions.  The first four points are concerned with aspects of the first question and the final point is concerned with the second question.
         Respecting the first point, I think Mr. Marsh is being a little hard in suggesting that Mr. Haertsch is an unreliable declarant.  Overall, the evidence shows that the brochures were first printed in 1977 ‑ and Mr. Marsh accepts this else his argument about the printing dates would have no basis ‑ and were sent to Mr. Haertsch over a period of time commencing in 1978.  It seems to me simply that as the date of printing is so small, Mr. Haertsch did not realise it was there, and as the brochures were otherwise undistinguishable from each other, the one he used in his exhibit NHH2 (an English language brochure) was exemplary only.  In this respect, I note the comments in his first declaration (paragraph 8) that "Annexed hereto and shown to me as exhibit NHH2 is a copy of the brochure KKK01‑04284 that I received in 1978".  In support of this, Mr. Kurz declared that 40 brochures were mailed to Multitech on 10th July, 1978, in accordance with exhibit B.  Exhibits B and NHH2 are identical in every respect except for the final line of print, which is slightly less than 1 millimetre high.  I reproduce the respective final lines here for comparison:
         B   :  KKK 01‑04284 FO6 4 78 RD
         NHH2:  KKK 01‑04284 E26.81 ND2RD Printed in Germany
Consequently I reject this submission, and I accept that the brochures were, in fact, received by Mr. Haertsch some time in 1978; I also accept the remainder of his evidence at face value.
The second point hinges upon the relationship between K.K.K. and Multitech. In the expression "The agent stands in the shoes of the principal" used by Mr. Marsh, the term "agent" has a particular meaning implying specific obligations as might readily be exemplified in the relationship existing between an applicant for a patent and his Registered Patent Attorney. Thus an "error or omission" whether due to negligence or otherwise in relation to an application for a patent before the Patent Office made by the Attorney is attributable to the applicant. This much is clear from the judgement of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Full Federal Court and the High Court in re The Board of Control of Michigan Technological University's Application. (The latter two judgements are reported respectively at 34 ALR 529 and 40 ALR 577). However it is also clear that the term "agent" implies different obligations in other circumstances. Thus in some fields of law, particularly in the area of limitation of actions, negligence on the part of a solicitor has not been held as attributable to a claimant personally. See, for example, Quinlivan v. Portland Harbour Trust (1963) VR 25, Black v. City of South Melbourne (1963) VR 34, and Anisiena v. H. Crane Haulage Pty. Ltd. (1974) VR 670. In this particular case, the only evidence of the relationship between K.K.K. and their "agent", Multitech, is provided in the declarations of Mr. Haertsch (first declaration) and Mr. Kurz. These declarants make it clear that the relationship was a commercial one for the purpose of marketing K.K.K. fans in Australia. This, of course, required that the knowledge of the available fans be brought to the public, and as stated in Mr. Haertsch's first declaration (paragraph 5), "Such relevant information ... was given to potential customers". I note also that both declarants make it clear that the information received by Multitech from K.K.K. was not conveyed under any obligations of secrecy or confidentiality, that is, expressed in other terms, "without inhibiting fetter". The law applicable to this situation has been aptly expressed in Bristol‑Myers Company's Application (1969) RPC 146 and Monsanto Company (Brignac's) Application (1971) RPC 153. I find therefore that the drawing 015 and the K.K.K. brochure (of exhibit B) were published in Australia some time in 1978, by virtue of receipt at Multitech. It follows also that the transmittal of the brochure to B.H.P. Wollongong and the N.S.W. Electricity Commission in 1980 constituted publication of that document, as again, there was no confidentiality involved.
         In view of the foregoing finding, the importance of the third point is minimal; however I comment in passing that I do accept the evidence of Messrs. Forrester and Stutchbury, and I conclude that the documents in question were not published in connection with their transmittal to the S.E.C.V. and I.C.A.L.
         The fourth point of Mr. Marsh's submission leads to two alternative conclusions each of which would be indicative of at least incomplete truth in the evidence of the opponent.  I cannot agree with either conclusion ‑ I have accepted the transmittal by K.K.K. of the brochures and the drawing 015 to Australia in 1978; as to the other conclusion there is a big difference between circumstances where on the one hand something is widely known, or in fact common knowledge in an art, and on the other hand that something has been only published.  Thus to be published a thing need only have been made available to one member of the public, without inhibiting fetter (See Bristol Myers Company's Application supra), and I have decided earlier that this had been done.
         I will now consider whether the drawing 015 and the K.K.K. brochure disclose the invention the subject of the present claims.  Mr. Marsh has referred me to Lord Reid's judgement (Van Der Lely v. Bamfords supra) at the passage concerning interpretation of photographs.  Strictly, this passage concerns only photographs, which do not usually show the workings of a thing in the same sense as would a written description or a drawing; nevertheless, the law expressed there is no different from that applicable generally in testing for prior publication.  In this respect, Mr. Ashford has stated that an engineer would have understood the function of the annular chamber depicted in the drawing, whereas Mr. Russell's evidence is to the contrary.  As it appears clear on the evidence as a whole that the particular fan structure involved was certainly not part of the common knowledge in the art, I accept Mr. Russell's view.  However, this does not bear directly on the question of whether the drawing 015 publishes the claims, which are directed to a fan structure ‑ either that structure is disclosed in the drawing or it is not.  In this case there is no doubt whatever that claims 1‑3, 5 and 7‑9 are totally anticipated by that drawing.  In this respect I note that claim 9 is directed to preferred embodiments of the invention; I take its construction to include the features as recited in claim 1, (and the equivalent statement at page 1a), insofar as those features are described with respect to the drawings.  Thus this claim is not limited to including the fixed vanes in the intermediate portion of the casing (vide claims 5, 6); likewise it includes a fan in which the diameter of the intermediate portion is 1.1 times the diameter of the impeller (as in drawing 015).  As to claim 4, Mr. Archibald submitted that there was no novelty in the particular ratios specified, which appear to be merely matters of design choice.  I agree.
         I come now to consider claim 6.  It is not clear to me what this claim does define, but in my view it does not define the vane arrangements illustrated in Figures 1, 3 or 5; on the other hand, whatever it does define is not disclosed in drawing 015.  Pursuant to this, and having regard to Mr. Russell's evidence, it seems to me that the fixed vane arrangements as illustrated in Figures 1, 3 and 5, would, if suitable defined, constitute patentable subject matter.
         My findings in relation to the K.K.K. brochure are similar to the foregoing.
Conclusion
         I have found that all claims of the application but one are anticipated, and that the exception is not a clear definition of the invention.  However, as I consider that the preferred fixed vane arrangements would be suitable subject matter for a patent, I allow Howden 60 days from the date of this decision in which to propose amendments accordingly.  On the matter of costs, Mr. Marsh requested variation in the event the opposition was to be upheld, on the basis that there were untranslated German language documents in the opponent's evidence.  I have considered this matter and in my opinion the effect of the untranslated documents on the applicant's preparation of its case would have been minimal.  Therefore I award costs in favour of Flakt.  As D. Richardson & Sons withdrew prior to the hearing I make no award of costs in respect of their opposition.

(J.L. ROVETA)